The Assembly met at 13:30 with the Llywydd (Elin Jones) in the Chair.

I call Members to order.

Nominations for a Committee Chair

Yesterday, the Assembly agreed a motion, under Standing Order 17.2A, to allocate the Chair of the Petitions Committee to the Conservative group. I now invite nominations, under Standing Order 17.2F, for the election of the Chair. Only a member from the Conservative group may be nominated as Chair, and only a member of the same political group may make the nomination. I invite nominations for the Chair of the Petitions Committee. Are there any nominations?

David Melding AC: I nominate Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you. Are there any further nominations?

Russell George AC: I nominate Mark Isherwood.

Thank you. Are there any further nominations? Any other nominations? Does any Member object to the nominations?

Neil Hamilton AC: Object.

I shouldn't have asked the question, actually. So, even if he did say 'object', the question was not meant to have been asked. [Laughter.]

Therefore, as we have two nominations, the vote for the committee Chair will be made via secret ballot. That secret ballot will be held in briefing room 13 in the Senedd between 1.45 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. this afternoon. The clerks will be responsible for supervising the voting and counting the votes. I will announce the result of the secret ballot later this afternoon. Do recall that all Assembly Members have a right to vote.

Emergency Question: The Welsh Government’s policy on Brexit

That brings us to the emergency question, as I have accepted an emergency question under Standing Order 12.67. I call on Adam Price to ask that question.

Adam Price AC: Will the First Minister make a statement on the Welsh Government’s policy on Brexit following the rejection of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons last night? (EAQ0005)

Mark Drakeford AC: Thank you for that question.

Mark Drakeford AC: The Welsh Government policy remains unchanged from that set out in 'Securing Wales' Future', published following the 2016 referendum and jointly with Plaid Cymru. We remain committed to participation in a customs union and the single market, dynamic alignment with the social, environmental and labour market standards of the European Union. We believe that the UK Government should take 'no deal' off the table, as such a cliff-edge exit from the European Union will have, we believe, a catastrophic impact on the economy and the people of Wales. These are the positions that have been endorsed by this National Assembly in recent debates on Brexit and the European Union negotiations—endorsed here on 15 January and on 30 January, and in the joint debate held last week in both the National Assembly and in the Scottish Parliament.

Adam Price AC: Two weeks ago, it was announced with some fanfare that Jeremy Corbyn, having seen eight of his MPs leave the party, had embraced the policy of a people's vote. Two months ago, you agreed to accept a motion that called on the UK Government to make immediate preparations for a further referendum. So, why did the statement your Government released on Monday, and presumably the associated letter to the British Government, not mention a people's vote once? Why, yesterday, did Jeremy Corbyn not mention a people's vote—your own party's policy—a single time in his 24-minute Commons speech? Why, in response to the vote, did he say that the purpose of extending article 50 was to replace Mrs May's 'dead Brexit' with his 'red Brexit'? That is virtually identical to the policy that Parliament just rejected—'a' customs union, but not 'the' customs union, with a say on EU trade policy, illegal under World Trade Organization rules; close alignment with the single market, but not membership of it. A unicorn is still a fantasy creature, whether painted red or blue. At times like this, we need honest politics. We need people to say what they believe and act accordingly. I think it's pretty clear now that Jeremy Corbyn's embrace of a people's vote was an opportunistic act of grand deception. And if you don't agree with that, First Minister, you're either a liar or a fool. [Interruption.]

Adam Price, personal insults are not acceptable in this Chamber. This is an emergency question, a serious matter, and political name calling at this point is not appropriate. I will ask the First Minister to respond to the substantive points in the question.

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, I will, Llywydd, as you suggest, ignore the deeply disrespectful remarks of the leader of Plaid Cymru. These are really serious days, Llywydd, with really serious decisions in front of our country. Why does the leader of Plaid Cymru seek to demean those discussions with the sort of remarks that he's made here this afternoon? I deprecate them—I deprecate them absolutely with every force that I can. He should know better. Really, it does no service at all to our nation for him to introduce this question in the way that he did.
Let me turn, if I can, to the substance of his question. The statement that the Welsh Government made on Monday of this week was about a very specific matter. It was about the amendments that we have drawn up that we think could secure, through a withdrawal agreement Bill, commitments to the political declaration that could deliver the sort of Brexit that has been endorsed in this Assembly. And that is the policy of this Government. We remain of the belief that a deal is there to be done, a deal of the sort that has been long debated and endorsed here. That would be a deal that would require membership of a customs union, full and unfettered access to and participation in a single market, a sensible approach to migration.
It may be—it may be—that Plaid Cymru has long left behind the commitments that they made here in this Chamber. It may be that Plaid Cymru will be the only party in the whole of the House of Commons to try to put an amendment down today on the people's vote. It may be that Plaid Cymru has departed from that position as well and now is in favour of revocation of article 50. I look forward to Members of Plaid Cymru explaining that to people in their constituencies who voted, as Wales did, to leave the European Union. Our position as a Government has not changed. Our position is the one that we have put repeatedly to this Assembly, and it is the position that this Assembly has repeatedly endorsed.

Darren Millar AC: I welcome the opportunity for this statement today, and I do think it was quite disrespectful in terms of the way that this question was introduced by the leader of Plaid Cymru. We know that the House of Commons has rejected the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal in spite of the assurances that were given by the EU in relation to the backstop yesterday, and, of course, there will be further votes taking place today, and likely tomorrow, in respect of how the House of Commons wants to take things forward.
What I have been impressed with is the way in which the Welsh Government has been engaging with the UK Government in terms of trying to prepare for the potential outcomes, whether that be no deal or whether it be a deal, and let me make it clear that the Welsh Conservatives are committed to trying to achieve a deal so that we can have an orderly exit from the European Union. We believe that it's imperative on the Government of the people of Wales, the Welsh Government—and let's not forget that Wales voted to leave the EU, and leave we must—it's imperative upon the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to deliver upon the instructions of the people of Wales. So, can I ask you, First Minister, will you provide assurances to this National Assembly that you will continue to work carefully and closely with the UKGoverment in order to achieve an orderly exit from the EU, whether that be with a deal, which, of course, is preferable, or without?

Mark Drakeford AC: Well, Llywydd, of course, it is the responsibility of the Welsh Government to work carefully with the UK Government, as we do with the Scottish Government, and every meeting that we attend with the UK Government is also attended by Ministers of the Scottish National Party on behalf of the Scottish Government too. They understand their responsibilities, we understand ours—would that other Members of this Chamber had a similar grasp of what being in Government actually involves.
Now, we disagree with the UK Government, as the Member knows. We have long argued that the Prime Minister should have sought a different sort of deal on the floor of the House of Commons and that a majority is still there to be found for a different way of leaving the European Union.
In the meantime, and against the day that we were to crash out of the European Union—an eventuality that we resist on every occasion that we are able to—we do prepare, because that's what responsible Governments have to do. We prepare in the field of food, we prepare in the field of water, we prepare in the field of transport, and we prepare in the field of our economy as well. And we'll go on doing that even in times when we have disagreements—profound disagreements—with the UK Government about the way in which they have approached the whole matter of responding to the referendum in June 2016.

Neil Hamilton AC: Does the First Minister agree with me that political insults come in many forms and a much more serious insult than any epithet that may fall from the mouth of the leader of Plaid Cymru is the insult that is being hurled at the British people by the House of Commons this week? The British people and the people of Wales, having voted to leave the European Union in an unqualified vote of two and a half years ago, now is being betrayed. As Jean-Claude Juncker once memorably said,
'There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.'
And so, many countries in Europe have been obliged to keep on voting until they vote for what the Eurocrats want, if they vote against what they want the first time around. The House of Commons voted to have a referendum by 316 votes to 53. The House of Commons voted by 492 votes to 122 to notify the EU that we were leaving, triggering the article 50 process. They willed the means; now they have to will the end.
Just over 100 years ago, we had a great constitutional battle in this country of the peers versus the people when the House of Lords tried to vote down Lloyd George's budget. Today, it's the whole of Parliament that is against the people, because the House of Commons, having a majority of remainers—480 out of 650—are now trying to defy the will of the British people and overturn the referendum result of two and a half years ago. The House of Commons is in the process of expressing its full contempt for the British people, as indeed this institution has done, because there's an overwhelming majority of remainers here as well. Is the First Minister fearful of the growing gulf that there is between the people of this country and the political class that is set to betray them?

Mark Drakeford AC: Llywydd, I reject the language of betrayal. I don't share the conspiratorial view that the Member has of what is going on in the House of Commons. I think the House of Commons has struggled to deal with the complexities of Brexit. I think it has gone about its responsibilities in a way that many people find baffling. But I don't think it's anything other than honest. I don't think it's anything other than people trying to grapple with those difficulties and those complexities, even if the answers that have emerged so far do not measure up to the scale of that challenge.
Nobody, Llywydd, I believe, voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union without a deal. That is certainly not what they were told by people who urged them to vote to leave the European Union. We were told, as the Member knows, that it would all be done in the easiest possible way—that all the problems would be amenable to easy solutions and that we would leave the European Union in a way where the sunny uplands would be immediately within our grasp. We know now just how far from the truth that has turned out to be, and I don't think that the way that the House of Commons is grappling with all of that amounts either to an insult or a betrayal, and I reject the view that the Member has put to us this afternoon.

David Rees AC: First Minister, many of us witnessed the shambolic events in the House of Commons last night, where we saw, again, a Prime Minister losing a substantive part of her policy for the second time by over 100 in the situation. Clearly, they vote today on the situation regarding whether Parliament wants a 'no deal' or not a 'no deal'. I understand that that is not binding. There's also going to be a vote, possibly tomorrow, on whether we have an extension to article 50, but again, if that is rejected, we go for a 'no deal'. We are accelerating towards a 'no deal' exit, which I believe now is the only vision that the Prime Minister and her Cabinet have for this country, because they've made no effort at all to change that direction. They've made no effort to look at the red lines, because we also know that if the red lines were changed, the EU would be listening very carefully to some of the policies. Is it now time to agree with the vice-chair of the 1922 backbench committee that it's actually time for a general election and to remove this Government?

Mark Drakeford AC: I thank the Member for that question, and I want to agree with the point that he makes, because there may be votes in the House of Commons today that will seek to remove 'no deal' as an option, but none of us should believe that that actually, by itself, obviates that danger. In fact, I think the danger that we will crash out of the European Union on 29 March has grown, rather than diminished, in recent days, and we remain, as you know, firmly of the view that that is an outcome that would be deeply inimical to the best interests of Wales and people who live here and we will go on doing everything we can to argue against it. But the way that events have unfolded in recent days I think makes that danger greater rather than lesser, and that's why we have worked with others in other parts of the United Kingdom to be as well prepared as it is possible to be against that deeply undesirable eventuality.
Of course I agree with what David Rees has said, but when a Government in the House of Commons fails not once, but twice, to persuade the House of Commons of the proposition that Government puts to the House of Commons in the single greatest responsibility that will ever fall to that Government, then what we need is a new House of Commons. And that's in the hands of the Prime Minister. She can call a general election. And I still believe that that is what, constitutionally, she ought to do. Because we know that that can be denied to us, then we have said as a Welsh Government—and I say it again this afternoon—that if the House of Commons is deadlocked on this matter, then the decision will have to go back to the people who made it in the first place.

Lynne Neagle AC: Does the First Minister agree that the European Union could not have been clearer that there is no scope for a further renegotiation and so therefore we have three basic options: to leave with no deal, which would be catastrophic; to back the Prime Minister's deal, which the Commons refuses to do; or to have a people's vote? And does he agree with me that that equally applies to the advocates of Brexit in our party and that a pig in lipstick is still a pig and that the idea of a jobs-first Brexit is equally unconvincing and ridiculous?

Mark Drakeford AC: I think there are two further options beyond the three that the Member has outlined, all of which I agree are still in the frame. Another option is the general election option that you've heard from David Rees, and the fifth option is a deal that would meet the criteria set out in our paper 'Securing Wales' Future', in the five tests that were put by the leader of the opposition to the Prime Minister in his letter to her, and which yesterday leading members of the European Union were welcoming as a further and different way in which a deal could be done with the European Union. So, I think we are still in the position where all those options could happen. We reject a number of them. We reject no deal, we reject the Prime Minister's deal; the other options, including the people's vote option that the Member has outlined, remain ways in which this position could be resolved.

Thank you, First Minister.

1. Questions to the Minister for Education

The next item is questions to the Minister for Education, and the first question is from Hefin David.

The School Funding Formula

Hefin David AC: 1. Will the Minister make a statement on the formula used to allocate school funding? OAQ53579

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you, Hefin. Each local authority is responsible for determining how much funding is allocated to each individual school. School budgets are determined by a local funding formula and authorities must consult their schools budget forums and all schools in their area when setting or making changes to a funding formula.

Hefin David AC: Last week, I hosted a drop-in event for Assembly Members on behalf of various teaching unions, including the National Education Union. Teachers who attended told me that they were concerned that cuts in UK Government funding are having a direct impact on their ability to implement the education reforms, including, for example, the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018. They argue that the school funding formula needs to be more equitableand reflect current challenges. And in your response to the Conservatives' debate on this subject, you acknowledged that how schools are funded can actually be quite confusing, and you indicated that you're not opposed in principle to the funding formula being changed. That's to be welcomed and, with that in mind, would you now commit to a regular and ongoing dialogue with local authorities, regional consortia, the teaching unions and the teaching profession in order to look at how these issues can be addressed, and how we can make the most of these difficult circumstances in the face of ongoing austerity?

Kirsty Williams AC: Of course, Hefin, that dialogue continues every day in my department. Only last week, senior officials of the education department were meeting with the Association of School and College Leaders to discuss with them their concerns. I continue to challenge both regional consortia and local authorities with regard to ensuring that as much money as possible reaches the front line of our education system in individual schools. And I am always open to discussions as to how best we can ensure that more money makes it into individual school budgets.
Of course, the vast majority of school budgets arrive out of the revenue support grant for individual local authorities, and I am aware that the distribution sub-group of local government are currently looking and have started a new stream of work to look at how indicator-based assessment levels of education are completed when determining levels of RSG, and I welcome that work indeed. Both myself and the previous local government Minister and the new local government Minister have said, if local authorities come forward with ideas of how to change the funding formula, we will work with them in good faith and we will continue to do that. It is confusing often for people to see how money gets to schools because of the different layers of funding that are available, but my aim always has been, when I was an opposition Member, and it certainly is now that I am the education Minister, to get as much money to the front line to individual school budgets as possible.

Mohammad Asghar (Oscar) AC: Minister, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, evidence suggests that differences in local funding models are causing concerns about unequal treatment of schools in similar circumstances. They went on to call on the Welsh Government to consider reviewing the school funding model if it is to realise its ambition for equity in education and student well-being. Minister, the National Association of Headteachers Cymru have said that the current funding system is not fit for purpose—their words, not mine. What action will you take to address these inequalities in the school funding formula in Wales, please?

Kirsty Williams AC: Oscar, it is important that local authorities are responsible for school funding in Wales, and that is set out in law. I'm not sure if the Member is advocating removing that power away from our colleagues in local government. I certainly think that our partners in local government would take a very strong view about removing that power from them. It's also important to realise that there is not a free-for-all for local authorities with regard to how they set their individual funding formulas within a local authority. The regulations require 70 per cent of funding for schools budgets to be distributed on the basis of the number of pupils in the school, and authorities have the leeway of 30 per cent to be able to adjust to individual circumstances.
I do hear that maybe what you're hinting at is that we have a single funding formula and a single figure to fund education across Wales. On the face of it, I can see why there is an attractiveness to that, but when we consider the great diversity of the Welsh education system—a system that delivers bilingually, a system that delivers for large city-centre schools with a diverse population, many children coming to our schools that don't have English as a first language, to those very, very small rural schools where it is inevitable that the cost of education will be more expensive given the size of those schools—it perhaps is not so easy to come up with a single figure that actually covers the educational needs of Wales's very varied communities and the great diversity that we have in our education system. But I'm always open to Members' suggestions as to what changes they want to see to the formula, whether they want to see more money spent on deprivation or rurality or bilingualism,but, of course, that has to be done in the envelope that is available to us, and I don't see anybody standing up in this Chamber offering up money from their schools to be given to other people's schools.

School Guidance on Suicide

Lynne Neagle AC: 2. Will the Minister provide an update on the guidance which is going to be issued to schools in April on talking about suicide? OAQ53576

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you very much, Lynne. The national advisory group on suicide and self-harm is consulting group members and other stakeholders on that guidance prior to its publication in April. We will work with the group to ensure that the guidance is promoted extensively amongst professionals, and that is professionals not just in schools but more widely amongst youth services and other people who work with our young people.

Lynne Neagle AC: Thank you, Minister. I really welcome the fact that the guidance recommended by 'Mind over matter' is due for publication in April. I also welcome your commitment to work with the advisory group to ensure the guidance is promoted extensively. However, as you know, for many teachers, for understandable reasons, they are reluctant to talk about suicide. It is therefore crucial not just that the Welsh Government works with the advisory group to promote the guidance but that the Welsh Government proactively leads on ensuring that this guidance is used in all schools in Wales.
Several schoolchildren have died by suicide in Wales since 'Mind over matter' was published, and action on this is urgent. It cannot wait until the new curriculum and a whole-school approach to mental health is implemented in Wales. Will the Minister therefore commit to proactively leading on this with a view to ensuring that it is urgently rolled out in all schools, including ensuring it is incorporated into professional learning for teachers as a matter of urgency, so that they have the skills and confidence to use it?

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you very much, Lynne. Let me assure you, we're not sitting back and simply waiting for the implementation of the new curriculum, although the health and well-being area of learning and experience does give us a profound opportunity to change the way in which we talk about health and well-being in our schools. You'll be aware that £2.5 million is being made available in the new financial year, through the education budget, targeted at improving mental health services for young people, informed by youth work pedagogical approaches. Because those professionals working with our youth service often feel sometimes more comfortable and more able and more confident about talking about these very sensitive issues, and we want to use the learning from our youth-work colleagues actually to help inform the professional learning of our school-based colleagues. I can assure you that only yesterday I had a discussion with the official that is leading on professional learning to impress upon him that schools should be able to access professional learning opportunities around this guidance, and health and well-being overall, as part of the funding that we're making available to schools to support improved teacher confidence in this area, which can be really, really challenging for many people to talk about, not least teachers in our schools.

David Melding AC: Minister, I'm sure you'll want to join me in commending the work the Assembly has done in this area, particularly under the leadership of Lynne Neagle in 'Mind over matter', but also Dai Lloyd in the health committee. The simple message is: far, far too many people die as a result of suicide. It's hundreds a year in Wales. We must set targets to radically reduce the number of people who tragically die in those circumstances. Unfortunately, in terms of younger people, it is a major cause of premature death. It needs joint working across Government. I do also commend the work that Samaritans Cymru have done, again emphasising the need to train teachers so that they do have that level of confidence, at least, to address these very important issues. The skills we get at school, 10 or 20 years later—that can be the difference between someone seeking help and unfortunately completing suicide.

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you, David. I think it is absolutely right that we recognise the campaigning work that has been done by colleagues, such as Dai Lloyd, Lynne Neagle and Jack Sargeant, on these issues. I can assure you that we are discussing with our initial teacher education providers to ensure that, through initial teacher education, our future practitioners will have the appropriate skills. I was hugely encouraged by the recent vote here of the Youth Parliament, which as their top priority have voted to look to work on the issue of young people's mental health.It demonstrates how important this issue is to them, and across the country I know that young people and youth groups are working really, really hard to address the issue of resilience.
Presiding Officer, on Sunday morning, I was at the Hafren theatre in Newtown watching the YFC Wales's drama festival, and the winning club from Carmarthenshire, the YFC club of Llandovery, put on an incredibly sophisticated and moving entertainment on the subject of suicide in rural areas. And to see young people, aged 10 to 26, engaging in such a sophisticated way to spread these messages is something that would put some older people to shame.

Questions Without Notice from Party Spokespeople

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

Siân Gwenllian AC: Thank you, Llywydd. Headteachers the length and breadth of Wales are warning that there is a funding crisis facing our schools and that this will have far-reaching impacts—larger class sizes, fewer teachers, the condition of buildings deteriorating, reduction in the support for additional learning needs, cuts to pastoral services and well-being services. We are losing hundreds of our most experienced teachers and mid-level leaders from our schools as a result of early retirement.
The Children, Young People and Education Committee inquiry has placed a focus on the need to increase the quantum being spent on education, and it's also started to discuss what measures could be put in place even within the existing budget in order to ensure that more funding reaches our schools. There is one teaching union, with the support of the Conservatives, that recommends moving towards a system of direct school funding, creating a system similar to the academies in England. What's your view on direct funding?

Kirsty Williams AC: Firstly, can I say, with the committee looking at expanding the quantum of money available to me, I'm willing to work with anybody in this Chamber who is in favour of expanding the quantum of money that is available to our schools? As I said in answer to Mohammad Asghar, I'm under no illusions about the real challenges facing our teaching profession, and this is what austerity looks like. It's not an abstract concept. This is what austerity, prolonged years of public expenditure being squeezed—this is the reality of what it means out on the ground.
As I said earlier, in some ways, direct funding of a single formula does not, in my view, address the issue of the diversity of educational provision that we have in Wales. It undermines the law that we currently have, which says that this is the democratic decision-making responsibility of our local authorities, and would be incredibly difficult to do at a continuing time of austerity. It might be easy to do it if budgets were rising and we could have a floor below which nobody dropped, but, given the challenging financial circumstances we find ourselves in, it would be incredibly challenging to do so, and to think it is simply as easy as that—one only has to look at the discord across the border in England with how direct funding of schools has worked out for them.
Presiding Officer, perhaps in answer to the question about what more we can do, I would like to take this opportunity to announce to the Chamber that, following the statement that was made by the finance Minister last week, in 2019-20, I am allocating £47.7 million to meet in full the identified additional estimated pressure for maintained schools and further education colleges in Wales arising out of changes to teachers' pensions, and I hope that this will be welcomed across the Chamber and by individual schools.

Siân Gwenllian AC: Thank you very much, and I'm very pleased to hear that last announcement. I know that my colleague in Westminster, Ben Lake, has been pursuing this issue, so I'm very grateful to hear that—that'll be good news for our schools.
But, to return to direct funding, just to put it on the record, Plaid Cymru is willing to consider any proposals that would deliver better outcomes for our children. We are not of the view, however, that direct school funding is an option that should be considered here in Wales, and that's for a number of reasons. You've mentioned one issue regarding having one sum of money, but there's more to it than that. We need to keep democratic accountability at a local level in terms of funding, and central servicesprovided in support are crucially important—for example, for children in care and children with additional needs. There is a risk that the most vulnerable children could be forgotten in a system where funding would be provided directly.It’s one thing to provide direct funding for a large urban school, but very many of our schools are small, they are rural and they are in disadvantaged areas, and they need support from a central source. So, I’m very pleased that we’re agreed on that, and that you too are rejecting the calls for direct school funding.Do you therefore feel that it’s time for the discussion to move towards finding less damaging solutions for school funding and ensuring fairer school funding? Should that work be where the focus sits now?

Kirsty Williams AC: I think the Member makes a very good point: a point that was made, actually, very eloquently by Andrew R.T. Davies, who's not in his seat today, when he recently addressed the school funding budget debate that we had here. He recognised that there are some services that are best delivered and organised and planned at either a local authority level or a regional level, because that's where we can get the best type of service for individual children.
What is absolutely clear to me, in the absence of a commitment from the Westminster Government to end the damaging era of austerity, is that we have to work collectively to find more ways in which we can avoid duplication and get more money to the front line, and I'm more than happy to meet with the Member, or, indeed, other Members who have ideas on how that can be achieved, and I continue, as I said in an earlier answer, to challenge our local authorities, regional consortia, and other middle tier to ensure that they're not hanging on to budgets that could be delegated to individual schools.

Siân Gwenllian AC: To help with that discussion, therefore, may I suggest that there are a number of questions that you and the education department within Government could be asking? Are there too many layers in our education system? Do these create unnecessary bureaucracy? Is there too much duplication of work? And is that a good use of the scarce funding in the education pot? For example, are there too many bodies supporting schools? Do we need to tighten up the system substantially? Another question that should be asked is whether there is a better way of funding sixth forms in schools. Another for your consideration, if you would: could we hasten the process of distributing funding from the Welsh Government, avoiding financial announcements being made very late in the day? I do look forward to having a constructive discussion in light of this important committee inquiry.

Kirsty Williams AC: The Member is absolutely right to look at whether there is duplication. I am frustrated to read from ASCL and to discuss with ASCL some of their concerns, for instance, of a duplication of roles, functions and spending from the regional consortia and individual local education authorities. Of course, regional consortia are run by local councils—they are the stakeholders, they hold the managing directors to account—and therefore it seems to me very concerning that in that governance arrangement they would allow for a duplication of spend across their own local authority and their regional consortia. So, I want to reassure the Member that we are constantly challenging LEAs and regional consortia around issues around delegation.
Sixth forms, again, potentially, is a really challenging area about how we continue to provide access to post-compulsory education in a way that meets our Learning and Skills (Wales) Measure 2009 and meets the aspirations of our young people, who want a large selection of courses from which to choose, and how we can keep people in Wales. As a border Assembly Member, I'm very concerned that people choose to study post-16 over the border. We need to address that situation. I'm always very concerned that we ourselves as a department do all we can to get our money that we provide to schools out the door as quickly and as effectively and as efficiently as we possibly can.

Conservatives spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

Suzy Davies AC: Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, can I thank you very much for confirming that you've now heard from the finance Minister with a figure to be passported to you from the UK Government budget to meet—and I think; I'm just quoting you—that £47.7 million in full? It meets the costs of the pension hike in full. So, that's pleasing to hear. Can you tell me what steps you'll be taking to make sure that every penny that actually gets to schools will be spent in meeting the cost of the pensions uplift?

Kirsty Williams AC: Okay. Let me make it absolutely clear: this money relates to teachers' pensions. The allocation is £47.7 million, and it is, indeed, to meet in full the identified additional estimated pressures for maintained schools and FE colleges in Wales. But let's be absolutely clear: it is the Welsh Government that are meeting these commitments in full. The money that has come down from Westminster has not met the bill for these changes, and it is the Welsh Government that is ensuring that the pressures are met in full. This breaks down as £42.1 million for maintained schools, including sixth forms, and £5.6 million for further education colleges.The changes to teachers' pensions will be implemented from the start of the new academic year in September. Therefore, this funding relates to the period September 2019 to March 2020, and the Welsh Government's officials will agree with local authorities the specific logistics of grant distribution to each authority over the next few weeks, and it will be done in a special grant via local education authorities that they have to spend for this purpose.

Suzy Davies AC: Thank you. That's a very helpful answer, Minister. You've just confirmed that this is going to be ring-fenced money and it will be going to the schools, and, if that doesn't happen, then, obviously, we will be holding you, as well as local authorities, to account on that. Perhaps you can let us have a note at some point about what the difference is between the money that you've had from the UK Government and that that you're prepared to give to meet the total cost to see if we can get some sort of sense of the scale of your commitment.
Like Siân Gwenllian, I don't think I've ever heard from so many teachers about core funding as I am the moment, and, yes, we can discuss London's role in this, but teachers are wise to the fact that the education budget increased this year, and they have questions for you and council leaders about whether central Government grant funding, which is targeted at those diverse needs you mentioned a bit earlier on—whether that is starting to give local authorities a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to providing core budgets to school. And in particular—this is what's coming to me—the very welcome increase in the pupil development grant—and this is not an attack on PDG in any way at all—means that schools in more affluent areas are losing staff while schools in more deprived areas are able to retain them, because of the PDG targeting the needs of poorer children, obviously, but maintaining the resilience of the school structure and its staffing, and, of course, providing some incidental benefit to pupils who are not eligible for free school meals, which is fine by me, I must admit.
That flexibility is not open to schools with low PDG eligibility, and there's a risk now, I think, of creating a cohort of educationally disadvantaged children and young people, which is not what you want—I'm absolutely certain of that. So, I heard your comments in response to Hefin David a bit earlier on, in which you spoke of the funding formula, so I'm not talking about that. But are you open to reconsidering the balance of how schools are funded as between Welsh Government and local authorities and in the round, and, again, in a way that isn't seen as an attack on the PDG, because that's certainly not my intention?

Kirsty Williams AC: Well, the Member—. I accept that the Member is not attacking the principle of the PDG. Only yesterday, the First Minister answered a series of questions that talked about the impact of poverty on the life chances of those individuals who find themselves in those circumstances. And the £400 million plus that has been spent on the PDG since it was introduced in the last Assembly is just one attempt by the Government to try and level the playing field. But let's be absolutely clear: that is not the only source of funding that comes from Welsh Government to individual schools. We also have the school improvement grant, the education improvement grant. We have a specific grant that looks to address some of the logistical challenges and the teaching challenges of teaching in our small and rural schools. We have the business manager pilots, we have the class sizes grant, we have the additional learning needs money, we have the professional learning resources that have been sent to schools. So, there is a plethora of central funding that makes its way to schools, but, as I said, Suzy, I'm not immune to the challenges, the very real challenges, that are facing our school communities and our leaders who are working incredibly hard. But I don't think that the redistribution of the PDG is necessarily the way to solve those problems.

Suzy Davies AC: Again, thank you for that answer. Well, obviously, I'm hoping, like me, you're interested in the life chances of pupils from all backgrounds, and, at the moment, it's those in more affluent areas who seem to be taking the brunt of the way that local authorities are making decisions about how they distribute moneys—core funding. It's all well and good to speak about some of the other grants you mentioned, but of course, there have been cuts to the education improvement grant, as we've heard, in Gwynedd, which has resulted in children who don't speak Welsh as a first language not having access to the instruction that they need to help them access education through the medium of Welsh in that county.
Now, again, on the subject of unintended consequences of a good idea, teachers and local authorities are now very worried about how they're going to be able to meet the cost of compliance with the additional learning needs Act and the code, with some very serious questions being raised about the support currently offered to pupils on school action, in particular. I've been told by a teacher that it can take up to 20 hours of admin time to support a child, let alone the actual in-classroom time, and that staffing implications at a time when some schools are having to let staff go, in some cases, when the number of special education needs pupils is already rising and SEN funding from councils is falling. Now, there've always been concerns about the way this legislation is costed—I'm sure you remember that bruising period. I'm just wondering whether you will commit to reviewing not just what it costs to implement the Act and through the code, but ensuring that any additional money that you do manage to identify in due course cannot be diverted to meet other pressures that councils claim they have.

Kirsty Williams AC: Thanks, Suzy Davies, for that question. Can I just say that my understanding of the situation in Gwynedd regarding the immersion unit is not as portrayed by the Member? There are ongoing discussions within Gwynedd county council, between the executive of the council and, indeed, my officials about the future of those services, recognising the important role that immersion units play for children who have potentially moved to the area or want to be able to acquire those skills, and the council is considering the future of those services actively. So, it's not as the Member has portrayed in the Chamber.
With regard to remembering the bruising, well, he's not in his seat, but Alun Davies was the Minister responsible for the passage of most of that legislation, and I think he does remember that very well. You are right, the Government has committed £20 million to support the implementation of our transformational ALN agenda, working really hard to ensure its successful implementation, and clearly, the stated intent of that legislation is that all children, regardless of their additional learning needs, will have their needs met in full.

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Michelle Brown AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Relating to your earlier announcement about covering the funding for the pension changes, I think schools across Wales are going to be breathing a sigh of relief on that one, so I welcome your announcement.
Last year, a review showed that fining parents for taking children out of school in term time in Wales has had no effect on overall absence rates. Is it right that parents should be fined for taking their children out of the school for a week to take them on holiday?

Kirsty Williams AC: First of all, it's not just schools that are breathing a sigh of relief; I'm breathing a sigh of relief that the finance Minister has made these resources available. And it's remiss of me, I'm sure that the finance Minister will be more than happy to supply a note to Suzy Davies outlining the resources that the Welsh Government has had to find to make sure that this announcement has been able to be made today.
With regard to fining parents, fining parents—. With regard to attendance at school, let's be absolutely clear that regular attendance at school is the most important thing a parent can do for their children's educational outcomes, and parents should make every effort when at all possible, unless a child is ill or there are circumstances beyond their control, that children should be in school. We leave it to the discretion of individual headteachers to be able to apply authorised absences, but local authorities will have and will continue to have the power to fine parents where they believe that that is an effective way to deal with non-attendance at school, and I would expect local authorities, in using such powers, to have worked for a long period of time with that family to ensure that school attendance is a priority.

Michelle Brown AC: Thank you for that answer, Minister. You'd like to add an extra in-service training day to the Welsh school calendar. It doesn't seem fair that the state can deny a child five or six days of schooling, but if a parent does it to take them on a holiday they might otherwise not be able to afford, they face being fined. If schools are to have INSET days, would it not make sense to have each school take the INSET days in a five or six-day block? In consultation with parents, each school could decide which week to have the INSET training. That way, families could use that time to go on holiday outside of the peak school holiday times, and parents may feel less frustrated by the current unfairness of the system.

Kirsty Williams AC: Well, the Member will be aware that we're currently out to consultation with regard to an additional INSET day. We are doing that because what I think parents want most of all is absolute certainty that our teaching profession is ready for the implementation of our new curriculum. But the consultation also gives us an opportunity to explore whether there is a possibility that we can have greater coherence about how individual schools use their INSET days. I do not believe changing INSET days is an answer to the very real problem that some families face in terms of the practices of holiday companies that up their prices significantly during the school holidays—in some cases almost doubling the price of a break, depending on when the school holidays fall.

Michelle Brown AC: Thank you for that answer, Minister. There's no denying that teachers are very, very busy during term time, and are possibly feeling under more pressure because of the pressure on education spending, but having INSET days spread throughout the year, forcing many parents to use up a week or more of their annual leave in a way that is basically useless to the family, does make some working families feel that the education system is indifferent to the impact that these days have on them. Some working parents may only have as little as four weeks' holiday a year if they're working full-time. They wonder, as I do, why teacher training takes place during term time, when teachers have three months' worth of holiday each year.

Kirsty Williams AC: Can I say—? Teacher training, in good schools, happens every single day of the week, because a good teacher knows that the lessons they teach tomorrow will be better than the lessons they teach today. We are consulting on an extra INSET day, because what I know, from speaking to the parents that I meet, what they want to do is to ensure that their children are in receipt of a first-class education system, and we need our profession to be ready for our new curriculum reforms.

Welsh-medium Education

Dai Lloyd AC: 3. Will the Minister make a statement on plans by councils in South Wales West to provide Welsh-medium education? OAQ53535

Kirsty Williams AC: Diolch yn fawr, Dai. All Welsh in education plans within South Wales West have been approved and implementation plans submitted to the Welsh Government in late December. Officials continue their discussions with local authorities regarding the progress outlined within those implementation plans.

Dai Lloyd AC: Thank you very much for that response. Now, the Welsh in education strategic plans, as you've mentioned, which have been approved by your Government, do show a great variation in the plans of councils across Wales, and within the South Wales West region in particular. The plan for Bridgend is very disappointing as compared to other councils. Only 7.5 per cent of seven-year-old children receive Welsh-medium education in Bridgend, and there’s been virtually no progress made during the current planning period. This compares with a target of 16 per cent in Swansea and a target of 22 per cent in Neath Port Talbot next door. Do you agree that the WESPs have been a complete failure in areas such as Bridgend, as your Government aims towards a million Welsh speakers?

Kirsty Williams AC: Well, Dai, as I've said, the plans have been approved. My understanding of the situation in Bridgend is that the authority has committed to expanding Welsh-medium provision in its band B programme, with a commitment to a new Welsh-medium school in the west of the authority, where there are new housing developments in the lower Ogmore valley. Furthermore, approval in principle of £2.6 million for the Welsh-medium and childcare offer, for the capital grants element of that, has been granted to the authority, to expand Welsh-medium childcare provision in four areas of the greatest demand, namely Bettws, Ogmore, Porthcawl and central Bridgend, in order to further support the growth of Welsh-medium education. You will be glad to hear that. And I will be constantly challenging local authorities to ensure that their ambition matches my ambition for the opportunities afforded to parents to make this positive choice of educating their children through the medium of Welsh.

Costs associated with Education

Leanne Wood AC: 4. How is the Welsh Government ensuring that parents are able to afford costs associated with their children's education? OAQ53552

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you very much, Leanne. I introduced PDG access in 2018-19 to provide additional support directly to families, helping those who need it most to meet some of the costs associated with the school day. For 2019-20 we have more than doubled the funding that will be available to support families in this way.

Leanne Wood AC: In the words of the Association of School and College Leaders, there is a 'severe funding crisis' in schools, which is having a 'detrimental effect...on...young people.' Those are direct quotes from them. This comes at the same time as a report by the children's commissioner, Sally Holland, last week, who said
'Financial demands are flying at families from all sorts of angles and it's the children who pay the price when their parents can't keep up with the costs.'
She added
'If we're serious about levelling the playing field and giving all children an equal opportunity to learn and grow, we need Welsh Government to show real ambition and leadership in helping the thousands of families across Wales who are really struggling.'
I've raised the school meals threshold with you on a number of occasions. Do you recognise the picture painted by these two impartial and expert sources? If you do, when can we expect to see this real ambition and leadership from this Labour Government to help struggling families and also to ensure that struggling schools get the funding gap plugged that they need to deliver good-quality education services to our children?

Kirsty Williams AC: I absolutely recognise the challenges that the children's commissioner report paints. That's why, as I said, next year we will have £5 million to spend on PDG access. So, for the first time, this year, parents have been able to get support for uniform and equipment when their child starts school and when their child transitions through to high school. I am currently looking at whether we can expand further opportunities for parents in other parts of their child's career to be able to access support. Meanwhile, our consultation on school uniform, to make sure that the guidance around affordability of school uniform is put on a statutory footing, which it has not been until now, has recently concluded, and I hope that will be in place before the start of the new academic year. At the end of last year, I commissioned Children in Wales to produce a series of guidance notes and support packages to schools so that they can better understand and they can help guide their decisions with regard to the cost of the school day. The guides will be stand-alone resources and they will cover an understanding of the causes and the impact of living in poverty, the impact of food and hunger, school uniform resources, and out-of-school activities. We are increasing the money available to local authorities to support our school holiday enrichment programme, so that all local authorities, hopefully, this summer will provide support for families during the school holiday process, and with regard to free school meals, thousands more children will be eligible for free school meals under the new regime, and a significant amount of additional resource has been made available to pay for those meals.

Joyce Watson AC: I thank you, Minister, for outlining all the help that we are giving, because clearly we're trying our very best in Wales just to mitigate the austerity that is coming down from Westminster. But I think my question has to be—and you've identified the need for more free school meals availability to young children—have you assessed the impact of universal credit on the eligibility for free school meals in Wales, and the impact that that might have right across the region?

Kirsty Williams AC: Yes, we have. What we know—the impact of universal credit will mean that more children will qualify for free school meals in Wales, and we have made resources available to that. We also know that some children who have a current eligibility may find that eligibility curtailed, and that's why we are putting in protection to ensure that those families do not lose out. We will keep under constant review the support for families in this particular area. Indeed, only earlier today, when the European sub-committee of the Cabinet met—one of the things that we're having to look at in terms of preparation for a 'no deal' Brexit is what more support we may be able to give to families with the cost of school meals should food prices rise considerably as a result of a 'no deal' Brexit, and what position we might be in to be able to help those families at that time.

Pupils on the Autistic Spectrum

Llyr Gruffydd AC: 5. Will the Minister make a statement on support for pupils on the autistic spectrum in schools? OAQ53556

Kirsty Williams AC: Diolch yn fawr, Llyr. I am committed to ensuring all pupils with autism in schools can reach their full potential. Our ambitious ALN reforms will completely overhaul the existing system for supporting learners, and will put in place an integrated, collaborative process of assessment, planning and monitoring of support that is made available.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you for that response. Of course, following the scrutiny work on the Autism (Wales) Bill that came before us a little while ago, one of the recommendations of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, of course, to the Government was that it should be a requirement for all members of staff in schools, particularly teachers and classroom assistants, to receive training in autism awareness during their initial teacher training. Now, this is something that the National Autistic Society in Wales has been calling for; it is something that does happen in England as a formal part of that initial teacher training there. Will you, therefore, adopt a similar policy in Wales, accept the recommendation made by the health committee—which, of course, is a cross-party committee—and take an important step in ensuring that children on the autistic spectrum do receive the best possible support to achieve their educational potential?

Kirsty Williams AC: Of course, Llyr, we need to make sure that any individual leaving our ITE provision is properly equipped with the skills and the knowledge to be able to help all of our children. Special—additional learning needs is an important part of our ITE reform. I think we would all agree that, in the past, sometimes, issues relating to ALN have been scant in initial teacher education, and we need that to change. We also need to make sure that teachers already in the system have access to professional learning, so that they can improve their skills where needed. And that's why we've made significant amounts of money available to individual schools to be able to address their professional learning needs, as well as the £20 million available for the implementation of the new ALN legislation, to ensure our schools are equipped so that all children, regardless of their diagnosis, or in some cases a non-diagnosis, can reach their full potential.

Mark Isherwood AC: My casework is full of families in crisis because children's communication, social, sensory and processing needs have not been understood, not been identified. I've got children who've not been in school for months, even years, without alternative provision being put in place. I've got a girl of 11, who the council is insisting has a male taxi driver. Because of her autism, she cannot have a male taxi driver, so they think they can somehow transition her over to having a male taxi driver. I've got children excluded from school because of autistic meltdown caused by the behaviour towards them. Only this week, an e-mail from a mum whose son has autistic traits:
'After a meeting with the school, we specifically discussed my son's use of swear words. The CAMHS specialist clearly backed up my explanation that my son is unhappy about these anxiety attacks, but can't control that language choice when pushed past a certain point. But the head of year was insistent on the school's policy towards bad language, and that he believes it cannot go unpunished.'
It's all very well waiting to see whether legislation works. But what urgent action can we take to stop these children being branded as 'naughty', and to start identifying their needs, and adapting to those needs, before they hit crisis point?

Kirsty Williams AC: I'm very sorry, Mark, to hear of the experiences that you've outlined in the Chamber this afternoon. And I know that you will not be the only Assembly Member who has had similar casework arriving in their postbag. That's the very reason why we have needed to change our ALN system, because the current system, in some cases, is not meeting the needs of individual children and their families. And that's why we have got the implementation plan that we have, as we transition out of the old system into the new system. I cannot comment on any individual cases, but I'm always very clear to Members that, if there are cases where they feel I can be of assistance, I'm happy to do what I can.

In-service Training

Rhianon Passmore AC: 6. What is the Welsh Government's position on bringing uniformity to the setting of INSET days across schools in Wales? OAQ53561

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you very much. Currently, the content and timing of INSET days is for local authorities, governing bodies and headteachers to determine. As you will be aware, last week, I launched a consultation on proposals for additional national professional learning INSET days for the next three academic years, which include questions on the timing of those additional days specifically.

Rhianon Passmore AC: Thank you. There has indeed been much debate and commentary on the interesting question of whether there could be some harmonising of INSET days across the nation, and with the announcement of introducing a welcome further sixth professional teaching learning INSET day, the Welsh Government has stated within its consultation that the aim for all schools is to fix the same date for it. If this comes to fruition, what analysis could the Welsh Government give to assessing the teaching value of INSET days being worked together in one convenient week? And outside of the majorative and substantive value to teacher learning, perhaps it could also be an opportunity to look at providing some mechanism for families to get the chance to get away at an affordable price during term time, and thereby countering rip-off holiday Britain, which is to the detriment of the consumer, but mostly to the detriment, educationally and pedagogically, of all involved?

Kirsty Williams AC: Rhianon, as you say, the consultation does look to the possibility of a national training day associated with the implementation of the new curriculum, but I don't want to prejudge the consultation. What I can say to the Member is that we've had over 300 responses to the consultation already and, when you consider that it was only launched last week, that is an amazing response.
I am aware that for some families financial constraints mean that they do look to take children out of school to enjoy a family holiday, and undoubtedly when holidays in Wales are different to that across the border in England, as it recently has been for half term, that can have a substantial impact on the prices that families have to pay. But, of course, my concern when organising INSET days is not to think about the convenience of the price of a holiday, our INSET days are there to provide teachers with the opportunity to engage in professional learning and to prepare themselves for the challenges of the new curriculum.

Andrew RT Davies AC: Minister, I understand obviously the consultation about at the moment about introducing the extra INSET days to prepare teachers for the new curriculum that will be coming forward. Interestingly, the proposal, and it is only a proposal, is about having that INSET day on the same day across Wales, I believe I'm correct in saying. How confident are you that there is the capacity to deliver the training opportunities the length and breadth of Wales, if such a national INSET day was introduced, because surely there potentially is a capacity issue to deliver those training platforms in every school across the length and breadth of Wales?

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you, Andrew. You are absolutely correct that the consultation does propose a single national training day for the next three academic years in preparation for the curriculum. What I would say to you is that you are taking, if I may say so, a rather old-fashioned view of what professional training actually looks like. The days of when we sent everybody to a WJEC conference, where people sat all day and listened to the sage on the stage and then took that professional learning back to their school, and in many cases did nothing with it, is not what we're proposing. The best professional learning happens when professionals work alongside each other in their clusters, in their catchment areas, and with their subject and age specialists. So, this idea that we will have to have hordes of so-called professional experts out in our schools is not how we are approaching it and is not the modern-day approach to professional learning.

Foreign Languages

Mohammad Asghar (Oscar) AC: 7. Will the Minister make a statement on the teaching of foreign languages in Welsh schools? OAQ53533

Kirsty Williams AC: We have invested over £2.5 million in our Global Futures plan, to enable learners to understand the importance of languages and the life-changing opportunities that they provide. I am aware of the challenges, and that is why, under Wales's new curriculum, learners will experience languages from an earlier age.

Mohammad Asghar (Oscar) AC: Thank you very much, Minister, for that. According to a BBC survey, Wales has seen a bigger decline in pupils learning foreign languages than in any other part of the United Kingdom. In the last five years, language GCSE entries in Wales fell by 29 per cent, compared to an 11 per cent drop in England, a 12 per cent drop in Northern Ireland and a 19 per cent fall in Scotland. The survey also found that more than a third of schools had dropped one or more languages at GCSE in the last five years. One of the reasons given by teachers for this decline is that the Welsh baccalaureate has added constraint to the school timetable so that foreign languages are squeezed out. Minister, what action will you take to reverse the serious decline in modern languages teaching in our Welsh schools?

Kirsty Williams AC: The first thing to say is that those students who do take GCSEs in modern foreign languages and A-levels in modern foreign languages perform excellently, with really, really high pass rates at the very highest levels. Many of our MFL teachers have been recognised for their excellence.
It is true to say, though, that we have seen a decline in those students who are taking a GCSE. What the BBC report also went on to say was that it's not the fault of the Welsh bac; it is also because, they reported, that children are spending extra time in English, maths and science lessons and it's also because of a perception that passing a modern foreign language is a really tough thing to do and children are under the misconception that it is a hard GCSE to take. That's why we are taking the steps that we are to support our modern foreign language mentoring scheme, new digital resources for digital language learning on Hwb, as well as the transformative approach to the new curriculum, where children will be exposed to modern foreign languages in their primary career and they can begin to develop that love of language learning before they get to secondary school. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that that is an innovative approach to tackling what is indeed a challenging situation.

School Budgets in Anglesey

Rhun ap Iorwerth AC: 8. Will the Minister make a statement on school budgets in Anglesey? OAQ53548

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you, Rhun. Diolch. Local authorities are responsible for school funding in Wales. Anglesey set their spending priorities for the services they provide, taking consideration of local needs and all the resources available to them. How much an authority sets aside for school budgets is a matter for that authority.

Rhun ap Iorwerth AC: Thank you very much. The impact of 10 years and more of austerity imposed by the UK Government, as well as the failure, I'm afraid to say, of the Welsh Government to prioritise local government funding this year, has led to totally unsustainable pressures on education budgets in Anglesey, as in the rest of Wales. I congratulate Anglesey council on succeeding in safeguarding education budgets to a great extent, but, of course, they have had to increase council tax by over 9 per cent in order to do that, and the increase in council tax has been great across Wales. I look forward to hearing more details in terms of what’s happening in terms of the pensions funding, which, without doubt, is going to provide some relief.
On the issue of funding more generally, the grants announced quite late in the day of course are a help, and I welcome anything that can reduce the burden on our schools, but does the Minister agree with me that distributing funds in this way makes it impossible, almost, for headteachers and governing bodies within schools to plan truly strategically for the future?

Kirsty Williams AC: For a moment there, Presiding Officer, it seems that the Member has forgotten that his party were part of the budget-setting process that has seen that local government settlement this year, and had an opportunity to influence the decisions that were made regarding the overall budget. But the Member makes a very fair point with regard to the timely distribution of grants that may be available to schools from the Welsh Government. Grants late in the day can be really challenging for schools to spend effectively and in a way that has the biggest impact, but sometimes, I myself as the Minister, am aware of moneys that are available quite late in the day and I will always use that opportunity, regardless of the time of year, where I can, to get that money to the front line.

Bethan Sayed is not here to ask question 9 [OAQ53571]. Question 10, Russell George.

The Key Theme of 'Ambitious and Learning'

Russell George AC: 10. How is the Minister's department contributing to the key theme of 'ambitious and learning', as set out in 'Prosperity for All: the national strategy'? OAQ53547

Kirsty Williams AC: Thank you, Russell. My national mission sets out a clear plan for delivering the ambitions set out in 'Prosperity for All', ambitious and learning. We have already delivered the most generous student finance package anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Russell George AC: Thank you for your answer, Minister. Currently, all children in Wales are entitled to a minimum of 10 hours per week of free foundation phase education in school or a funded nursery in the term following their third birthday. In England, all children are entitled to 15 hours per week. Due to the rurality of much of mid Wales, two hours a day is not proportionate, in travel terms, for people to travel from their homes to their setting and to deliver that foundation phase education. Is this something that you would be prepared to revisit and look at again?

Kirsty Williams AC: What I am clear about is that local authorities have the flexibility to deliver foundation phase hours in a way that is conducive to parents being able to access them, and that is particularly important in your area, where we will see the roll-out of the Welsh Government's 30 hours of childcare, which, of course, will be a combination of 20 hours of childcare funded by Welsh Government and 10 hours of foundation phase, which is also funded by Welsh Government via Powys County Council. And making sure that parents are able to avail themselves of these opportunities, delivered in a flexible way, is something that we urge all local authorities to do. My director of education, actually, will be in Powys County Council at the end of the week discussing this very issue with the new chief executive and the leader of Powys County Council.

Thank you, Minister.

2. Questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services

The next item is questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services, and the first question is from Suzy Davies.

Mixed Wards in Hospitals

Suzy Davies AC: Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, first of all, can I thank you very much indeed for the very speedy response you gave to the concerns I raised during the business statement last week?

You do need to—

Suzy Davies AC: I'm so sorry. How long have I been here?

You were too keen to thank the Minister there by far. Ask the question.

Suzy Davies AC: 1. Will the Minister make a statement on mixed wards in hospitals? OAQ53568

Vaughan Gething AC: Yes. The Welsh Government is committed to abolishing mixed-sex ward accommodation and to ensuring the safety, privacy and dignity of patients. All new hospital developments will be built to ensure single-sex accommodation, with guidance recommending a minimum of 50 per cent single bedrooms with en-suite facilities.

Suzy Davies AC: Thank you very much. That's encouraging and—. Shall we take those thanks as read?
I was grateful to you for that quick response—it's great to get that. And Members will remember that I raised, in business statement last week, the very unfortunate situation of women experiencing miscarriage before 20 weeks being located on a mixed-sex ward in Swansea's Singleton Hospital. And it may well be a large ward—men down one end, women at the other, separated by a desk—but it's still a general surgery ward, and I don't know whether, in extremis, that division can always be observed. Your officials are looking at miscarriage services following the report published by Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales, a report quoting one woman as saying,
'After a silent miscarriage I was given some information sheets on what I could do next—on a ward for the world to hear'.
Now, that report is six months old. This can still happen on ward 2 in Singleton Hospital. I'd be grateful if you could confirm when this practice will stop altogether.

Vaughan Gething AC: The challenge about taking forward our work on having more appropriate services on miscarriage is one that I've charged officials to take forward with our health boards, and I'm more than happy to update Members on the detail of that work and when we can expect to see real, material differences. As we run through the work that I described in my first answer on changing the layout of wards to make sure we do have, generally, single-sex wards, with appropriate accommodation and the real dignity that all of us would expect, there's a rolling problem, because, actually, the position that you've described in Singleton is partly because we're changing accommodation in different parts of that hospital. But we do need to make sure that, wherever that accommodation is provided, it does have the essential dignity that all of us would expect for ourselves and our loved ones. But, as I say, on miscarriage services, I'm happy to provide the Chamber with an update.

Obesity amongst Children and Young People

Siân Gwenllian AC: 2. Will the Minister make a statement on Welsh Government efforts to tackle obesity amongst children and young people? OAQ53566

Vaughan Gething AC: Thank you. We are consulting on our new 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' strategy. This will set out our long-term aims to reduce and prevent obesity across Wales. We currently have a range of preventative policies, funding and legislation, such as the daily mile, active travel and an obesity pathway.

Siân Gwenllian AC: As you’ll know, one in four children of four and five years of age are either overweight or obese. England and Scotland have set targets to halve obesity among children and young people by 2030. Why doesn’t the Welsh Government have a target? As with tackling poverty, without a target it’s impossible to see how the future should look. There is no clear aim to be delivered and no means of monitoring action in order to ensure that it does lead to the correct outcomes. Once again, Labour is avoiding taking responsibility in an important area. Will you set a target?

Vaughan Gething AC: I understand the debate around targets perfectly well. The challenge, though, is that for the targets that England and Scotland have set, there isn't an evidence base that underpins those targets. I've not met a single public health professional who has been prepared to look me in the face and say that the targets make sense and they think they're going to reach them. The last thing I want to do is to set a series of aspirational targets that we can't actually achieve. I'm interested in how we actually make a real difference in turning back the tide. We've seen a leveling off in the levels of overweight and obese children, but the challenge is not to say we've leveled them off but actually how we see the curve going backwards again. That is the challenge that we're consulting on in the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' strategy.
But, crucially, this isn't simply about the Government saying, 'You can and you must', because actually we need to work alongside people, with families, to see children in their context and the different influences around them—things like food labelling and food advertising, what goes into the food and drink that people have—as well as having that conversation in a way that isn't judgmental. Part of my real fear is that if you say to parents,'You are responsible for the weight and size of your child', then that actually will turn into a judgmental conversation and will turn people away from where we actually want them to be—to help people to make different choices.
I am not convinced—not just me, but neither is our chief medical officer convinced—that actually setting targets, as you've suggested we should do, is the right thing to do for the strategy. I will of course be accountable to this place for not just having a strategy in place after consultation, but actually whether we are making the sort of difference that I know that every Member in this room would want us to.

Paul Davies AC: Minister, I'm sure you'll be aware that Hywel Dda Local Health Board's latest Public Health Wales statistics show that an alarming 12.5 per cent of four to five-year-olds are obese, which is higher than the Welsh average and the second highest health board in the whole of Wales. Once children are obese, they are at real risk of getting even more obese as they get older, and we need to reverse this trend. I appreciate that individual health boards are responsible for introducing specific measures to tackle obesity, but it is important that the Welsh Government drives forward this agenda. So, given that obesity statistics are actually increasing, what are you now doing differently as a Government to tackle this very serious issue?

Vaughan Gething AC: We have a range of different measures in place. I described some of them in answer to the question. This isn't simply a matter for the health service. It is about health and health outcomes. For example, the daily mile is not something that the health service itself directly delivers, but it is working in partnership with schools about different forms of activity. Other schools won't have a daily mile, but they will have a different form of regular physical activity within the school.
You're right about the pattern for life that is set in our earliest years, both in the learning and the example that comes before engaging in school, as well as in particular the lessons in life and the patterns for life that are set at the end of primary education. So the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' consultation will look again at an evidence base. We looked at, for example, Holland, where there has been leadership and there's been a turnaround in some contexts, to see how we apply that successfully here.
Actually, the work that I've seen at Bishop Childs school—they attended the launch of the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' consultation—does demonstrate that it is possible to do something, but the challenge is how consistently we're able to do that, and not just in Hywel Dda but right across the country. Hywel Dda may have the second highest rate of obese children, but, in statistical terms, there isn't a significant difference. You actually see the difference in the socioeconomic status of where our children are, and that is a big challenge for us in every part of the country.

Questions Without Notice from Party Spokespeople

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Darren Millar AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, can I ask you what plans the Welsh Government has to prevent a stall in the fall in smoking rates in Wales?

Vaughan Gething AC: We're reviewing our tobacco control action plan to see that we do actually want to make further progress. We're looking again at the organisational structure, for example, of our stop-smoking services. Encouragingly, we saw more people come to the NHS Help Me Quit service this January compared to last January—a 20 per cent rise in people seeking help—but, of course, I'm always interested in understanding what tools are available and how we get to the point of persuading more people to take up the help that is available to persuade people to stop smoking.

Darren Millar AC: You may or may not be aware, health Minister, that today is No Smoking Day across the UK, which encourages people of course to take up the opportunity to explore quitting smoking. But, Public Health Wales have shown in their projections that they're expecting you as a Government to miss your target of reducing the prevalence of smoking across Wales to 16 per cent by 2020 and that you're currently around five years behind achieving that particular target. That of course is very worrying. It's worrying from a public health point of view in the future. I think that what we need to see is a radical sea change in the Government's approach, particularly in terms of the use of e-cigarettes to promote the cessation of smoking. So, as you will know, Cancer Research UK have been very clear that e-cigarettes are much safer than smoking tobacco. Everyone acknowledges, apart from the Welsh Government, it would appear, that they can be a very useful tool to assist people in quitting smoking in line with the advice of NHS Scotland and NHS England. So, can you clarify what the Welsh Government's position is on e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool? Thank you.

Vaughan Gething AC: I recognise the points about the targets and wanting to reach the targets and our ability to do so. Actually, before we achieved the 19 per cent interim target, there was widespread concern that we would not do that. So, it is possible for us still to match and meet that target, and that actually was an evidence-based target where we had a basis to set it and to want to achieve it.
In terms of the evidence around e-cigarettes, information about e-cigarettes is already provided when people engage with stop-smoking services. The point about the future for e-cigarettes is one that we do need to determine here in Wales, but I would just correct the suggestion that e-cigarettes are much safer. I think it is much more preferable to recognise that e-cigarettes are much less harmful than tobacco smoke, but the big prize to be gained is to have more people not smoking tobacco, and I think the terms in which you talk about that really do matter. I'm interested in the latest evidence, but not only that—we are seeking to draw people together in Wales to draw up a consensus statement within Wales on the place or otherwise for e-cigarettes within stop-smoking services.

Darren Millar AC: You seem to be playing with words unnecessarily, Minister, with respect. The only reason you hit your previous target was because of the take-up of e-cigarettes by many tens of thousands of people across Wales who use them to quit smoking. But, of course, they took them up off their own bat because they were not available—as is not the case in England where they are available—through smoking cessation services here. So, can I ask you again: will you consider allowing NHS Wales's smoking cessation services to use e-cigarettes and to promote the use of e-cigarettes to patients and individuals across Wales who are wanting to reduce the harm that they incur as a result of smoking? You say that these are much less harmful, I say that they are much safer. I think both of those things are not incompatible to actually say.
Now, can I ask about smoking rates particularly amongst pregnant women here in Wales? At the moment, around 20 per cent of pregnant women in Wales are smoking, and we know that that of course can lead to significant problems and complications in pregnancy and birth, including the stunting of the growth of children later in life and increasing their chances of developing diseases like asthma. Now, we know that the percentage of pregnant women smoking is higher in Wales than in other parts of the UK, including England and Scotland, so can I ask you specifically what work you are doing as the Welsh Government to focus attention on smoking amongst pregnant mothers in order that we can reduce these levels and lead the way in the UK, not sit at the bottom of the league table?

Vaughan Gething AC: Actually, there's significant work already under way on trying to help women to quit before and during pregnancy. That work is being undertaken together with midwives and health visitors. You may have missed that, last year, I actually launched part of our campaign on this in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. And that's together working with the midwives who are actually undertaking that care in the community as well as on hospital sites, and actually trying to change some attitudes around smoking as well, because if you go outside almost every maternity unit in the country, you'll find a bunch of fag butts outside. Now, there's a challenge there for us about changing people's perception of what they're doing, not just for themselves, not just when they happen to be pregnant, but actually for other people going in and out of those particular units. So, we already have a range of actions that we're undertaking. It's being led by evidence developed by midwives themselves working together with families, because actually it's about the support that a woman has from her partner that often makes a big difference as to whether they will take up the opportunity to stop smoking.
On the challenge about whether we describe e-cigarettes as safer or less harmful, actually the language really does matter. If you describe in advice something as being 'safe', then you're giving an impression about it. And I do think it matters. That's why, if we're going to have e-cigarettes used, we need to be clear about the language and the terms on which healthcare professionals in whatever part of healthcare engage with the public on them. You may have missed my answer to the lastpoint about smoking cessation. We are drawing together people in Wales to have a consensus statement on the use or otherwise of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation services. That will be specific and targeted. There won't be a blanket position that e-cigarettes are safe. It will be about whether they're a useful tool or not and, of course, we'll look at the evidence provided by both England and Scotland when we're making a decision here in Wales.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Helen Mary Jones.

Helen Mary Jones AC: Diolch, Llywydd. In February 2016, the then First Minister used an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentreport to defend the then Welsh Government's record with regard to health service delivery. Of course, when you look at what that report actually said, it said, among other things, this:
'at present, Health Boards do not have sufficient institutional technical capabilities and capacities to drive meaningful change, and a stronger central guiding hand may be needed.'
Then, two years later, the parliamentary review told us last January that a risk-averse culture hampers change in the health and care system and limits efficient and effective decision making. Does the Minister accept the OECD view that a stronger central guiding hand is needed, and what is he doing to change that risk-averse culture? He will no doubt tell us that the vehicle for delivering lasting change is his transformation fund, but I'm sure that he would acknowledge that that is a very small amount of money compared with the overall budget. How confident is the Minister that local health boards are delivering now on key Government priorities?

Vaughan Gething AC: Actually, when talking about the way in which the health service was being discussed in 2016, you'll remember a blanket, lazy and wildly inaccurate suggestion by a number of political players that the health service in Wales was the worst part of the United Kingdom. Actually, what the OECD report said very clearly was that simply is not true. It did, however, have criticisms to make about each part of the health service within the four nations of the UK, and that included the criticism that you've read out about where we are in Wales—having a more logical structure to the way we organise health services, but needing to see that made real in terms of the delivery.
And, actually, in terms of that point about there needs to be a more central guiding hand, I am regularly urged to take more interventions in the way that health services are run. Actually, I have taken a more interventionist approach, but the challenge is how we have a system that is set up, not just the attitude of an individual Minister. And you'll recall that in 'A Healthier Wales', we do talk about more central funds, we talk about having a national clinical plan, we talk about having a central NHS executive for Wales as well, and that work is well under way and is being drawn together. And I will consider options for the creation of that body to provide that clearer central guidance and leadership within the service to work together with our health boards and trusts here in Wales.

Helen Mary Jones AC: I am, Llywydd, encouraged to a certain extent by what the Minister says there, but he does use the phrase 'talk about', and I think we need to refer to what is actually happening now. From April, our local health boards will be responsible for an unprecedented amount of public funds in Wales, and I think there's nobody in this Chamber that would disagree with the need to invest. Now, other public sector bodies will be looking on with envy at those resources that are available, despite the fact that other public sector bodies, as the Minister has said himself in response to other questions this afternoon, have key roles in supporting the health of the people of Wales. Those public bodies will be entitled to ask us, I think, whether such money is really being used to push the stated national strategic objectives. Now, one of these objectives is to shift services from secondary care to primary care and, again, I think that has broad support across this Chamber.
But we need to look at what the actual spending has been over the last five years, and we've seen local health boards continue to do the opposite. Spending on primary care has increased in cash terms by £74 million, but that, of course, over the five years is a real-terms cut. Spending on secondary care has swallowed up the vast majority of the increases, getting around £845 million extra. Now, this is a clear illustration to me of local health boards failing to move resources and services from hospitals into communities, despite that being a clear Welsh Government priority. We see that also in increases in staff numbers, a very small rise in hospital doctors, but offset by the fall in the number of GPs. Can you explain to us, Minister, why you are allowing local health boards to disregard your stated policies in this regard?

Vaughan Gething AC: I don't think that's a fair characterisation at all. When you look at what we're doing with NHS spending, I'm proud of the fact that we're putting more resources into the national health service, despite being 10 years deep into Tory austerity, and the choices we make are incredibly difficult and they have a real-world consequence in every single public service. And there is no easy choice to make. If we put more money into different public services, then we will obviously face challenges about whether we're adequately funding the health service to deliver the sort of care that each and every one of us expects for ourselves. So, we made an upfront choice within the last term to put money into the national health service and accepted that would reduce money for other public services. You can't pretend that you can add more money into everything, as some people in this Chamber, despite campaigning for austerity in three successive general elections, regularly do in these sets of questions.
In terms of how we're getting different organisations to work together, the transformation fund is focused on moving more activity and resources around it into our primary care system, and more than that, in the partnership between primary care and other public services. That requires the health service to be a better partner in that conversation and in, then, the delivery of those services together.
So, actually, when you look not just at the activity we're undertaking now, but if you look at the transformation fund itself, you'll see that each and every one of those has been supported by each regional partnership board. And that now includes not just health, social care and the third sector, but, from the start of April, every regional partnership will also include voices from housing and education to make sure we have a joined-up conversation with each of the regions of Wales about how to transform services, and how actually the resources should follow the event when there's an agreement about what we should do to change it, to make sure there is real, system-wide change and not small, individual projects that each one of us may talk about on a local level but won't transform our system. That is absolutely my objective.

Helen Mary Jones AC: Llywydd, I'm very pleased to hear the Minister say that that is his objective, but I would put it to him that his party has been running the health service for 20 years in Wales and since the very first days of the National Assembly, we have been talking about—with, again, broad cross-party support—removing resources from secondary care and investing in primary care and indeed taking that a step further and ensuring, as the Minister has already said this afternoon, that there's much more effective co-operation between social services and health. I would put it to the Minister that this is nothing new and this is not rocket science and nobody's arguing with him about whether or not some of the projects under the transformation fund will be positive and deliver positive results. I mean, for example, I'm very glad to see—I know this has been put forward as a priority by Hywel Dda and their partners—that the local health board is actually paying for some elements of social care to enable it to get people out of hospitals more quickly. That seems to me to be entirely positive, but I don't know why we need to do that on an experimental basis and why the Minister can't simply encourage all—well, actually, instruct—all local health boards to do this.
I appreciate some of what the Minister's already said this afternoon about trying to give a stronger guiding hand, but let's be clear here, Llywydd: the Minister appoints the local health boards, he sets their priorities, he gives them their funding. I was here in this place and actually assisted the then Minister in writing the legislation that makes it completely clear that the local health boards are accountable to him. And the then Minister used these words, I think, in this Chamber: it is absolutely crucial that decisions about health are made by the people the people can sack—in other words, the politicians.
What assurances can the Minister give us this afternoon that once he has learnt those lessons from the transformation process—and I'm not sure that we need to learn them again—but once he's learnt those lessons, he will insist that local health boards and their partners deliver on the good practice that the transformation fund's projects identify? Because, as he has just said, what we do not need is more small, little, local projects, however successful they are, if those are not sustainable and then rolled out.

Vaughan Gething AC: Well, when we talk about how we transform and change the system, I'm not sure that there's a great track record in the conversation about who can sack who. Actually, that doesn't generate the sort of system transformation we want to see. If that were the case—you look at the system in England, where, actually, chief executives of acute NHS trusts have an average life span of less than two years—and that's no way to run a system. In fact, it was very interesting to hear—. Sir Bruce Keogh, in his leaving speech—not in his speech while he was looking forward to many more years in post at the NHS Confederation conference—when he was leaving NHS England, talked about that challenge, the way in which leadership, in the English system, has been brutalised and it doesn't allow people longer term choices to deliver the sort of paths to deliver the value that each of us wants to see. That's absolutely why having a joint health and social care plan is so important. It's why the transformation programme really matters—to get to the point where there are models to scale up.
I've been really clear about my expectations. The way in which we do it will not be a simple pulling of one lever or me going around and potentially threatening people with their employment if they don't do as I want. That is not the way to deliver change in the system. It will be a combination of different things depending on where each partnership is. In different parts of Wales, they're more aligned to come and do that somewhere together. So, in Gwent, we see a real commitment to transforming children's services across health and social care. I think they'll get somewhere. They won't need me to stand over them to encourage them to do it. They want to take the lead in those areas. That's the cultural change that we need to deliver because that will be much more effective in delivering outcomes that she and I and everyone else in this Chamber wish to see.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Gareth Bennett AC: Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, recently, WalesOnline published a news story highlighting the difficulty many patients are having in finding an NHS dentist to register with. The news reporter had herself moved to Carmarthen from Kent and, suffering a dental problem suddenly, she found that the closest dentist willing to offer an appointment was in Llanelli, which meant a 50-mile round trip. Of course, this problem isn't confined to west Wales. I checked the NHS Wales website this morning and found only three dentists in Cardiff offering NHS appointments. To be fair, that's a little better than the last time I looked in January, when there were none. There are no dentists in Newport currently accepting NHS patients, and if you live in Brecon and Radnor you can expect a long drive, as there are only two practices in the whole area with appointments available. What steps can be taken to address this problem?

Vaughan Gething AC: I've actually been very encouraged by the response of the dentistry world to 'A Healthier Wales' and wanting to see that as a kick-start to the reform that they wish and need to take to make sure they're delivering the sort of service that they want to provide and that each of our communities expects as well. There are challenges around the country about our capacity to take on extra NHS patients, but, actually, that really is tied up with contractual reform. So, since she came into post, the chief dental officer has undertaken a much faster rate of reform within the contract here than prior to her arrival. I've encouraged her and empowered her to do so, and, actually, when you see the next statement on where we are with dentistry, I think Members will have a degree of optimism about the future, and I'm expecting to announce more in the autumn, depending on the evidence we've had. We now have an increased number of dental practices taking part in the contract reform programme. Far from being reluctant to do so, as a number of practices were, we're now having real enthusiasm from different people in order to change the way that they work, because, actually, they'd rather have greater capacity to do the right things, and this really is about providing the right care at the right time, rather than providing treatments that aren't evidence-based in a contract that rewards the wrong sort of behaviour.
So, if the Member will bear with me for a short period of time longer, I'll be able to make a statement to him and other Members about where we are and our expectation for the future.

Gareth Bennett AC: Well, thank you for that anticipatory report of the contractual overhaul. And it's encouraging that you are looking at this, and I look forward to the statement in the autumn. Now, of course, I can't really pre-empt what that statement is going to say, but if I could flag up a few issues relating to the contract—the British Dental Association say that the recruitment and retention of dentists in Wales has been a problem for some time, and, of course, the contracts currently in place are part of the problem. They have called on the Welsh Government in the past to devise a system that makes Wales a more attractive place for dentists to work. Some of the problems are relating to the tough UDA targets, which are currently called for—that's, as you know, units of dental activity. We do have the system of clawback as well, whereby if they underperform by more than 5 per cent, there is this clawback of money. So, these are all issues that feed into this rather unwieldy contractual system that you've identified. So, I know you say there is an overhaul and we are going to have a statement in the autumn. I don't know if you can make any comment at the moment on some of the issues that I've raised.

Vaughan Gething AC: Yes. The British Dental Association are key stakeholders. I meet them during each year. They have access to meet the chief dental officer and her officers within her department. And you're right that the UDA, along with the contract, is an essential part of reform. Where we're actually seeing practices undertake the contract reform opportunities—it's changing the way they deliver their work, and that in itself is making Wales a more attractive place for dentists to work, but also the skill mix of people, so the numbers of dentists, assistants and others who will work within each of those practices. So, that is absolutely part of delivering better care, a better place for people to work, and, actually, better value for the public money we invest in the system.

Gareth Bennett AC: Yes, that's encouraging. Now, if I can go back to the UDA issue, obviously, this is all going to hopefully come out in the autumn statement, but one issue with the clawback is that the money that is taken back from the dental practices is not ring-fenced and so is not necessarily going to be reinvested in the Welsh dental service. As we know from matters that are continuously debated in this Chamber, the national health service in Wales are short of money in many areas, so the problem is that much of this money that's clawed back is used to plug funding gaps in other areas of the Welsh NHS system. So, we do have this rather perverse situation at the moment, which the BDA have identified, where there are large waiting lists and patients having to travel many miles for check-ups, but, at the same time, money is being taken out of the dentistry system and put into other areas of the NHS. So, hopefully, that will form part of your thinking with this overhaul of the contracts.

Vaughan Gething AC: Yes. I'm very clear about the way in which money that is allocated and earmarked for dental services should be used, and it should not be used to fill gaps in other budget lines when, actually, we recognise there is more for us to do to provide the quality of care and services that, as I say, each community in Wales deserves and expects.

The Provision of Social Care

Mike Hedges AC: 3. Will the Minister make a statement on the provision of social care in Wales? OAQ53541

Julie Morgan AC: 'A Healthier Wales' sets out our vision for a seamless health and social care system. We've put a strong legal framework in place to make that happen, including the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and new approaches to joint working and staff development will help make that vision a reality.

Mike Hedges AC: Can I thank you for that response? I believe high-quality social care is actually preventative spend because it stops people ending up in the final place of hospitals, which low-quality social care can mean, or no social care can mean, that they end up in. What is the Welsh Government's intention regarding social care being provided either directly by local authorities or via care co-operatives?

Julie Morgan AC: I thank Mike Hedges for that very important question. I have begun initial discussions with local government, with the third sector and the independent sector providers about how to improve the stability of care and support provision in Wales. These discussions are at a very early stage, but I will keep Members updated on progress. But, just to give one example, the Welsh Government has been working with the Wales Co-operative Centre and they are preparing a report that will include clear recommendations and next steps for continuing to develop and strengthen the role of co-operatives and social enterprises providing social care in Wales. That is the Care to Co-operate project.

Janet Finch-Saunders AC: Here in Wales we are fortunate to have many adults who are prepared to selflessly give their time to provide stability and security to children when they need it most. These individuals include private foster carers, who make private arrangements with parents. Now, as you'll be aware, private foster carers and parents of children placed are required to notify the social services department of those arrangements made so as to promote safeguarding and welfare of those children. What steps will you be taking to ensure that private foster parents, following the Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) (Wales) Regulations 2006, know that they have to notify the local authority at least six weeks in advance of any proposed arrangements and that the relevant local authority will then undertake an inspector visit within seven working days and then, obviously, compile the very necessary report?

Julie Morgan AC: Well, I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for that question. Obviously, private foster parents need to be covered by these regulations that she has described, but, obviously, it's very important that they know what they have to do. So, I think it is incumbent on the local authority to ensure that private foster parents are made aware, that they make publicly available the information about what private foster parents have to do, because it's extremely important that private foster parents are regulated for the reasons that she's given.

Dai Lloyd AC: Minister, would you agree that it’s unacceptable to tell a vulnerable older person who is poor and yet who doesn't reach the high threshold to receive public care following assessment—would you agree that it’s unacceptable to tell such a person, 'Just pay for your own care privately or go without'?

Julie Morgan AC: I think I'd have to have some more details about this particular case that you're describing before I could comment on it. It obviously sounds a very unfortunate incident to have happened, but I'd be grateful if you could let me know the details of that case and I can respond.

Active Travel

Huw Irranca-Davies AC: 4. What recent discussions has the Minister had with other Government ministers on the role of active travel in promoting health and wellbeing for children and young people? OAQ53559

Vaughan Gething AC: Thank you for that question. The Cabinet has discussed our 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' strategy, which is currently out for consultation, to agree eight priority areas on physical activity. I've since established a cross-Government implementation board; the first meeting that took place was attended by me and my colleague Dafydd Elis-Thomas. There are a range of programmes, such as the daily mile, the Healthy and Active Fund and active travel to school, which support delivery of our ambitions.

Huw Irranca-Davies AC: Well, thank you very much for that answer, Minister. I'm pleased that you've already—. You've pre-empted my question, because part of the delivery of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013—brought through with laudable ambitions by my colleague John Griffiths here, before my time—sets out that Wales would become the country where it was the most natural thing to walk and cycle, it was the most natural way to get about. But we held a debate only last week where we showed the distance that there is between that laudable aim and actually the reality on the ground, and a lot of this is to do with cross-Government working. So, could I have that commitment on record from the Minister that he will continue to work with other Government Ministers, including the Minister for Education, to ensure that active travel to and from schools becomes a key part of the Public Health Wales administered healthy schools programme? This will not eat into schools' time, into any curriculum delivery, and it can be done cheaply and well, as we saw only recently at the cross-party group on active travel, delivered in Cardiff itself. So, would he commit to that cross-Government working with the Minister for Education to really embed it within the healthy schools programme?

Vaughan Gething AC: Yes, I'm more than happy to continue the work that I and Dafydd Elis-Thomas have started with a range of Ministers with an interest. And, of course, the Minister for Education has a specific role and remit over what takes place within the school. There's a challenge about not just what takes place in the curriculum, but the broader culture within that school, but—obviously, with our colleague the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport in particular—to understand how we get children to and from the school as well. Now, it isn't just about travel in the school day, it is also work, for example, on our response to the 20's Plenty for Us campaign as well—the evidence that exists about whether speed limits make a difference about people's willingness to travel to school and undertake other forms of getting to and from school, their place of work and moving around socially as well. So, there's a wide range of activity that I'm interested in to fundamentally change the way that we move and the way that we actually have health outcomes here in Wales as well.

David Melding AC: Minister, I'm encouraged to hear how you're talking to colleagues, because this does seem to me an area for the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 methodology to come in place, because, clearly, you can improve health. The other key thing, if we do, is we improve the environment, because the school run is something that really got embedded in the 1990s. Of course, those of us of an older generation have no idea about it. It still amazes me to see just how much traffic there is taking children and young people to and from school. I did notice there was an excellent demonstration outside the Senedd—unfortunately, not on a sitting day—of young people demanding more action. One thing they could demand is an end to the school run. I think that is a real thing that would help improve the situation. And it's really that sort of challenge that we now need in the system.

Vaughan Gething AC: I recognise exactly the point you make and I'm, in politics, young—in real life, I'm a middle-aged man—and so I do remember going to school and the normal thing was that people walked, and you got a bus to school if your school was further afield. There were very few cars around the primary school that I attended, and yet, in most of my constituency and in most others, there are a significant number of short journeys to and from school.I normally walk, and sometimes end up carrying my son to school, but the normal way for us to get to school is not to get in the car. There's a challenge about how we renormalise behaviour, and, again, that challenge about not wanting to judge people, because, actually, that doesn't help them to engage, but how we make it easier for people to make that journey a normal one without the aid and benefit of a car.

Rhun ap Iorwerth AC: I was delighted to take part in the health committee's recent inquiry into increasing physical activity among young people, and I'm looking forward to going through the report that I pushed to have, to go through it in more detail. But one of the key things that was highlighted in that report was the need to push active travel for children. And I am also pleased that you're talking with other Government colleagues about what can be done, but, of course, what you're talking about is crucial here. Not only do we need to see co-operation, but we need to see co-budgeting, I think, between Government departments. Can you assure us that you are moving away from what would perhaps be called a silo way of working in order to find ways of co-funding schemes that have benefits across departments?

Vaughan Gething AC: Well, every department needs to think not only about its own individual priorities, but actually priorities for the Government, and on a number of the areas—this is only one example—what is a Government priority with a lead Minister requires action by a number of other people to make it real. That's exactly what we are aiming to do. I will, of course, be responding to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's report in due course properly and fully, and we'll see if this place allocates time for a debate in the Chamber as well.

Breastfeeding Rates

Jenny Rathbone AC: 5. Will the Minister provide an update on breastfeeding rates? OAQ53582

Vaughan Gething AC: Whilst rates in Wales have remained static over recent years, the Welsh Government remains committed to increasing the uptake of breastfeeding. A national work programme has been established, involving clinicians, service leads, Public Health Wales and other stakeholders, including, of course, women themselves, focusing on improving breastfeeding rates in maternity and early years settings.

Jenny Rathbone AC: I appreciate that you fully understand the importance of breastfeeding for the long-term health of both mother and baby from your previous answers, but we are starting from a low base, are we not, as 71 per cent of mothers in Wales initiate breastfeeding compared to 83 per cent in England. And we know that only 1 per cent of mothers breastfeed exclusively for six months in Wales. And I think what I wanted to explore with you now are really the social barriers to women breastfeeding, because it isn't just about ensuring that they have the best professional support; it is about ensuring that they get the support from their families and from the wider community.
I do recall vividly the research that was presented in the Assembly a couple of years ago from Cardiff University who'd done research in a Newport Communities First area about the resistance from both family members and also from the public when people were endeavouring to breastfeed in a cafe or a restaurant. And I am delighted to see that Newport has now got the Newport Breastfeeding Welcome premises scheme, which tackles this issue of ensuring that people understand that this is a perfectly normal activity. So, I wonder if you could tell us, since that was launched a year ago, what success it's had, if there's any sign of improvement in breastfeeding rates in Newport, and whether there are any plans to roll that scheme out across Wales so that we can ensure that all premises serving food are welcoming to breastfeeders.

Vaughan Gething AC: I couldn't tell you about the figures on outcomes from the Newport project, but I'll happily look at it. I realise that that's an issue that has been raised in the Chamber by our colleague Jayne Bryant. But I think that, in many ways, the most important term used there was about 'normal', and breastfeeding is normal and the challenge is that it has been denormalised in lots of situations. Now, that's part of our challenge, you're right, about parents, the wider family, friends, work and social settings, for this to be seen as exactly as it is: it's an entirely normal activity and one that we want to encourage and to renormalise in areas where it isn't. But, more than that, I'll have some more to say about the work we're doing within Government. I'm looking to publish some of our reports and recommendations that will come to me in May, June this year, but, on the specific point about Newport, I'll happily look at it and come back to update on if there are early findings that would help us in our work nationally.FootnoteLink

Information further to Plenary

Andrew RT Davies AC: Breastfeeding is a critical campaign tool that the Welsh Government should be promoting across all newborns' mothers. I'm someone who wants to join in that campaign—my wife, a former midwife, obviously knows the benefits of that. But the one thing we lack is a workforce of midwives in the Cwm Taf health board area that is fully manned, if you like, with midwives there to help expectant mums. We know that Cwm Taf have had problems; we know Cwm Taf has the lowest take-up rate of breastfeeding of all the health board areas. Can you update us today, Minister, as to what the staffing arrangements will be amongst midwives in the Cwm Taf health board area in light of Healthcare Inspectorate Wales's comments yesterday? Because, as I'm led to believe, there are still gaps and there are still vacancies, and we can talk all we want about the positives around breastfeeding, but, if you haven't got the midwives in place, then that support that expectant mums would require is just not going to be there.

Vaughan Gething AC: I recognise the points the Member made, following the report that was published following the unannounced inspections that Healthcare Inspectorate Wales undertook in October of last year. Some immediate actions were taken and they have recruited more staff into the midwifery service within Cwm Taf. And it's important to recognise that this isn't just about the point at which people give birth, it's actually about the support and encouragement given beforehand. And, again, midwives are a really important part of that. But, actually, there are many other drivers around whether people are prepared to initiate, and then continue, breast feeding as well. So it's about how different parts of our system work together, as well as, as I've said, the social drivers too. I can say that my expectation is that Cwm Taf will be Birthrate Plus compliant—they will have the right number of midwives, for the births that are expected, to do their job, both within the community and within the way in which we are rearranging midwifery and maternity settings as well.

Pneumoconiosis

Delyth Jewell AC: 6. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of diagnostic tools being used to assess miners for signs of pneumoconiosis? OAQ53554

Vaughan Gething AC: People affected with miners’ pneumoconiosis are able to access the relevant lung function tests, chest x-ray, and, where appropriate, CT scan. We also have important work being taken forward through the respiratory health implementation plan, to improve respiratory services in Wales more broadly.

Delyth Jewell AC: I thank the Minister for his answer. My office has been contacted by a former coal miner, who has raised concerns that cases of pneumoconiosis may be going undetected due to outdated diagnostic procedures, and that pneumoconiosis can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms that are associated with it, like coughing and shortness of breath, can be indicative of a wide range of illnesses. The usual course of action for suspected cases is to refer the patient for an x-ray. However, only late-stage pneumoconiosis tends to be picked up by x-rays, and early-stage cases can pass undetected. Former miners face injustice on many fronts; the least they deserve is the peace of mind that they're given the best possible chance of treating this cruel disease. The most effective diagnostic tool is a CT scan. Will the Minister commit to providing CT scans as the default diagnostic tool for former coal miners, who are at high risk of suffering from black lung, as coal miners' pneumoconiosis is often referred to?

Vaughan Gething AC: I would expect the appropriate use of diagnostic tools, as opposed to saying, 'Someone is a former miner, therefore they'll have a CT scan'. It's about understanding the symptoms they come in with. Because, actually, pneumoconiosis in its early stages is asymptomatic—it can take some time, depending on the person and their own make-up, as to when it becomes symptomatic, and how that's done. And you are right that some forms of scanning are not appropriate, and don't pick that up. It is actually why the respiratory improvement programme, which is led by clinicians, is so important to understand the evidence base of what's the right treatment, the right diagnosis, and at which point. So, it is really about taking that evidence base. And, importantly, this is an area where clinicians themselves are getting to a point of consensus. And there's real leadership within the health service, not because a politician has demanded it, but because they recognise there's a better way to use resources, a better way to improve the job that they're doing, and, crucially, to improve the care that they provide for people in every part of the country.

Ill health in South Wales

John Griffiths AC: 7. What further action will the Welsh Government take to prevent ill-health in south Wales? OAQ53544

Vaughan Gething AC: Improving health for everyone is a central ambition of 'Prosperity for All' and 'A Healthier Wales'. Welsh Government, in partnership with Public Health Wales, health boards and local authorities, are working to deliver our priorities to improve population health. Central to this is support for targeted interventions to encourage healthier lifestyles.

John Griffiths AC: Thank you for that, Minister. As we heard earlier, smoking is still the biggest cause of preventable death and health inequality in Wales. And, over the last few years, the rate of progress in reducing smoking prevalence has largely stalled. One effective way of driving down smoking rates, particularly perhaps in more deprived areas, is community-based actions to help people stop smoking. Will you consider incorporating those community-based actions into the £100 million health transformation plans?

Vaughan Gething AC: People regularly ask how the transformation fund can be used to support a different range of activities. I think this is straightforward public health work, and how we support people to quit, how we have healthier messages about not taking up smoking in the first place, and then how we support people to reduce and then stop smoking as well. Our vision is to have a smoke-free society, and there are various stages to that point. I'm interested, as I said in answer to earlier questions, in the evidence base about what is the most effective smoking cessation service, and what is the most effective way to have the conversation about smoking, and the impact that has, not just on the person who is smoking, but people around them, to try to persuade more and more people to take action and to quit. Then it's about how we help people. And of course, it is entirely appropriate that your question is asked today, on what I recognised earlier is No Smoking Day.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Thank you. And, finally, question 8—Mark Isherwood.

Cerebral Palsy

Mark Isherwood AC: 8. How is the Welsh Government providing services for people with cerebral palsy? OAQ53573

Vaughan Gething AC: Our neurological conditions plan sets out the Welsh Government's commitment to ensuring those affected by any kind of neurological condition have timely access to high-quality pathways of care irrespective of where they live and whether they're delivered through hospital or community settings.

Mark Isherwood AC: Thank you for that. Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting the cerebral palsy register for Wales launch event in the Senedd. The register, which will be the first national register in Great Britain, will record symptoms, assessments and ongoing care for people living with cerebral palsy collected by health professionals and stored anonymously on NHS systems. This could then be used to make long-term sustainable changes in service provision, making a real clinical difference, with better understanding of the population of people who have cerebral palsy and an ability to plan for the right services in the right place, initially starting as a pilot in Powys, before being rolled out across Wales. But it's currently dependent on charitable funding, and the register's creators have said that it will need to be fully integrated into NHS Wales to ensure its survival. Given that the Welsh Government—yourself—has said that you are supportive of the initiative, and that's been greatly welcomed, what action can you outline about the assistance that you propose to provide to support the register as this moves forward?

Vaughan Gething AC: I had the opportunity to visit the Bobath centre the day after the launch of the register and it was part of the discussions that we had. So, I'm interested in the evidence base that's going to be generated from the work in Powys, and it's been really helpful that there's been engagement with a range of different people in trying to create that in the first place, because part of what we need to do is to make sure that in creating something initially, it's not created in a way that makes it incompatible with the way you deliver the rest of health and care. That's why they're looking to make sure that it's compatible with the Welsh community care information system, otherwise known as WCCIS. So, that's been really helpful.
As we learn more about the project that is starting in Powys, we'll then have an understanding not only of the benefit, to make sure it's actually properly integrated in the way we want to deliver health and care, but then the choices, if we're going to then roll that out successfully across Wales. So. we'll have more information, and we'll then have a responsibility to make choices about if and how we'll see that rolled out across the country.

Thank you very much, Minister.

5. Statement by the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee: The effect of Brexit on the arts, creative industries, heritage and the Welsh language

Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee: the effect of Brexit on the arts, creative industries, heritage and the Welsh language. I call on the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, Bethan Sayed.

Bethan Sayed AC: Thank you. I'd like to make a statement on the potential impact of Brexit on the organisations under my portfolio as committee Chair. I want to stress the effect of Brexit on our creative industries. If we cannot access the single market, and the free movement of goods and labour it allows, this will be just as damaging to the arts as it is to our farmers and manufacturers, though, according to the people who gave us evidence, this gets much less attention in the press. The creative industries are also heavily reliant on the single market, but they don’t receive the same level of attention in the media as car makers and food producers.
The Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee carried out an inquiry into the impact of Brexit on creative industries, the arts, heritage and the Welsh language in the autumn of last year. I thank all those who participated and I want to use this opportunity to highlight the concerns that they raised.
In a fortnight, we will, perhaps, leave the European Union, and, unfortunately, we are no closer to resolving these issues than we were in October, when we heard from stakeholders and the Welsh Government. Today, I want to highlight the dangers of Brexit. There are three specific problems, namely the loss of European funding, the loss of our ability to promote Wales on an international stage and the impact on Welsh-speaking communities.
In terms of EU funding, creative industries and performers in Wales have benefitted hugely from European funding. Once we leave, we may no longer benefit from funding through Creative Europe, Horizon 2020, Erasmus+ and the European regional development fund. This would leave a huge gap—for instance, the Creative Industries Federation reported that
‘The UK receives more funding than almost any other country through Creative Europe. The impact has been transformational in many parts of the UK’s nations and regions.’
EU funding has boosted our arts and heritage sectors and the creative industries. The legacy of this investment can be seen across the country, in the Galeri arts centre in Caernarfonand the Pontio arts centre in Bangor. There is a consensus in this Chamber that Wales must continue to receive the same level of funding that it would have had if the UK had remained in the EU. Since 2017, the UK Government has pledged that a UK shared prosperity fund will plug the gap, but it has still not published any details on how it will work. The current uncertainty about future funding is damaging to our creative industries and it’s vital that we obtain more certainty on the funding that will be available after we leave.

Bethan Sayed AC: In our report, we called on the Welsh Government to remain part of the European schemes that give our creative industries the ability to collaborate on projects and compete for business on an international scale. On remaining in Creative Europe, the Welsh Government told us that they will
‘continue to seek confirmation from the UK Government on continued involvement and how the UK Government intends to facilitate this’.
We understand that the UK Government is open to exploring participation in the Erasmus+ successor scheme and that it supports full association with the Horizon 2020 programme. All this is encouraging, but it is a long way from the guarantees that our stakeholders require to plan and invest.
In terms of the Welsh language, as part of the inquiry, we heard of the threats to our Welsh-speaking communities. Funding from the common agricultural policy supports Welsh-speaking rural communities and EU structural funds support employment in some of our most deprived post-industrial communities.
Any downturn in our rural economies will have a negative effect on the numbers of Welsh speakers, endangering the Government’s 1 million target by 2050. During our inquiry, Merion Prys Jones, formerly of the Welsh Language Board, called for the safeguarding of the Welsh language to be one of the five main principles for ‘Brexit and our land’, which is the Government’s policy for supporting rural parts of Wales.
We called on the Government to make explicit references in this document to maintaining and growing the number of Welsh speakers and to state that providing financial support for land managers for providing public goods recognises that strong rural economies keep our language alive.
We were told that the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language has been in correspondence with the Welsh Language Commissioner in relation to the potential impact of Brexit on the Welsh language. I call on the Minister to provide more details here today on the work being done to mitigate the effects of Brexit on the language. At this time, the Government needs to demonstrate a greater sense of urgency.
In terms of the global stage, EU membership enables Wales to continue to raise its profile on the international stage, which is so important for the creative industries, which compete globally. The ability to generate income from touring productions in Europe is a vital part of our creative industry’s business model. For instance, during the last financial year, the NoFitState circus generated almost 40 per cent of its total turnover from touring.We heard that any restrictions on touring would jeopardise the viability of touring productions such as those of the National Dance Company Wales and British orchestras. The European Union Baroque Orchestra, based in Oxfordshire since 1985, has already moved to Antwerp because the loss of freedom of movement means that it cannot afford to spend limited funds on the bureaucracy required for musicians to perform on both sides of the channel, and that’s very sad news.
It will be difficult for Welsh productions to compete internationally if we do not remain part of the single market, according to the evidence that we received as a committee. The Welsh Government has accepted our recommendation to carry out an assessment of the 'soft' benefits of membership of European partnerships and to explore the opportunities for continued involvement.These are very helpful for our cultural institutions in order to, for example, gain and exchange knowledge, strengthen academic research, pursue collaborative business opportunities and enhance Wales’s profile on the international stage.
If Wales loses its access to an international platform as one of a collection of small nations in the EU, it will have to work harder for recognition in the future. We are a cultural innovator and benefit greatly from being able to showcase our achievements and share learning opportunities as members of informal European networks.
We know that Brexit will be the biggest financial shock this country has experienced during my lifetime. Our creative and cultural community will be affected in the same way as other businesses. The Welsh Government needs to act with greater urgency to ensure that every preparation is made to minimise the impact.
I want to close by thanking in advance the Members who want to ask questions, but to ensure that it's important that the arts receive the respect of this kind of debate in the context of Brexit—perhaps a debate that hasn't happened often enough so far.

David Melding AC: I thank the Chair for making the statement and raising these important issues; I just want to amplify two, if I may, to the Minister. The first is how various networks will operate: Creative Europe, Horizon 2020, Erasmus+ and aspects of the European regional development fund that were used for community and creative projects. These networks—I think all of them, but certainly most of them—are open to third parties, and we heard consistently that organisations wanted to remain part of these programmes so that they would have the network benefits. Now, of course, this will come at a cost, because third-party participation is only permitted to draw down the same amount that is put in or less. So, over time, obviously, we will get less out. I think, in terms of Creative Europe, the UK at the moment, probably, by proportion, gets more than any other state in Europe, or very close to it. So, we know there are going to be big changes there. But still, we need to choose those programmes that we want to be part of because of the creative network benefits, and then justify that to the public in terms of value for money. So, that's the first point I want to make.
Second point: I do think this issue of how the Welsh language is going to continue to be supported, particularly in the community areas where it's still a community language, I think that's vital. We don't have—. In my own lifetime, those parts of Wales that have over 50 per cent Welsh speakers and then those that have over 75 per cent have really shrunk, and it's a real concern. Livestock farming is a big industry in the areas that remain as majority Welsh speaking in the mother tongue. We've heard today that the 'no deal' tariff structure is likely to be no further tariffs for lamb, or at least the ones that currently exist, so that's good news, but beef will have a tariff. It's not quite as high as what we feared at first, but it's still considerable, and this may have an impact on our rural economies. So, I think it's very important that we remember that as well, when we're trying to work through the consequences of these shocks on Welsh-speaking communities and then adjust various programmes so that we can at least mitigate those costs and keep them to a minimum. But, you know, it is part of our strategic planning in terms of preserving and advancing the Welsh language.

Bethan Sayed AC: I think most of what David Melding raised was an appeal to the Minister, and I'm sure that the Minister will have heard clearly his comments. I agree in terms of the creative projects, such as Creative Europe, that we should select the networks. It’s disappointing that we've had to come to this point, where we will have to select the networks that we want to be part of, but it’s important that we have a strategy in place in order to ensure that Wales can continue with those partnerships.
Certainly, in terms of the Welsh language, in addition to every other challenge that rural Wales faces, there is also the challenge in terms of the language. I think what’s important is that we have the opportunity, through our universities, to ensure that some of those networks continue. Certainly, Aberystwyth University provides various opportunities to visit nations such as the Basque Country, and we will be going there ourselves before too long, in order to develop those linguistic skills that are so important to us as a nation and as a nation that has a unique selling point in terms of the Welsh language.

Rhianon Passmore AC: I rise also to speak as a member of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, and I was also glad to contribute to this short inquiry into the impact of Brexit on our creative industries, arts and heritage organisations in Wales, and the Welsh language. I wish to agree with the substantive issues raised today by the Chair and through the inquiry.
So, loss of freedom of movement will be extremely detrimental, as we know, to our orchestras, our ballet, our opera and our smaller touring companies, and also including the access and availability of our young people to the European Youth Orchestra. It is still very unclear at this very late hour what, if any, deal will be agreed upon.
I would also like to touch on some of my real concerns of the dangers that are predicted to await the Welsh arts and heritage sector and our international creative industries. Members will know that this is an area also close to my heart, so, Deputy Llywydd, it gives me no pleasure to say this: Prime Minister May's Brexit negotiations place a huge and regressive step to the Welsh cultural way of life. The Arts Council of Wales has estimated in the last tranche alone that our arts organisations in Wales received £18 million from the European structural investment fund, and this is money for the Welsh economy, it is money for the Welsh arts sector, and it is money for Welsh business.
I welcome very much the Welsh Labour Government's position set out in the policy paper, 'Securing Wales' Future'. To quote from it:
'During the referendum campaign voters in Wales were assured that leaving the EU would not result in Wales being worse off and it is vital to public faith in political process that this promise is honoured.'
Never has that been more important. Wales, as has been stated, benefits immeasurably from Horizon 2020, Erasmus+, Creative Europe, the Wales-Ireland programme, and much, much more that benefits our younger people, our older communities and our economies across Wales. I agree very much with Bethan Sayed that there is a consensus in this Chamber that Wales must continue to receive every single penny and level of funding that it would have had if the UK had remained in the EU. The shared prosperity fund must honour that commitment. The threats to the Welsh cultural sector are clear, but what I want to underscore is that Welsh Labour Government have played a vital and pivotal role in flagging up these concerns and putting direct pressure on the UK Tory Government to live up to their promises to the people of Wales.
So, if Brexit comes to pass along any of the lines presently envisaged, then it will mean that Wales will have to work even harder to be recognised, it will have to work even harder to export our work internationally, and it will have to work even harder to participate on the international stage that our artists and production companies have struggled so hard to find a footing in. Their excellence cannot be displaced, and it must work, finally, even harder to attract funding for Welsh arts in a climate of cuts to the Welsh budget. This is a travesty, and I believe strongly that the Welsh Government will continue to place this at the very heart of their business and negotiations as we move forward.

Bethan Sayed AC: I would agree with everything you say, and I hear your passion. Especially with regards to music, it was stark for me to read that the Association of British Orchestras said that 20 per cent of their musicians are from the EU, and highlighted the additional cost of arranging work visas for them. So, if we're going to make it very difficult for people to come and base themselves here, or to come and perform here or work here, then that's something that we should all be concerned about. National Dance Company Wales recruits up to 50 per cent of its dancers from Europe. These are skills that our Welsh dancers learn, and can take that on board and nurture future relations with. So, I think what you've said is very strong, and I hope that your Minister has heard and can take forward those concerns on a UK level, and acknowledge the importance of cultural networking and advances here in Wales.

Delyth Jewell AC: I'd agree wholeheartedly with what my colleague Bethan Sayed has said. Bethan and Members on all sides have spoken about the disastrous impact that Brexit could have on arts, culture and heritage.
I'd like to look at this from the opposite perspective, which is the way in which a lack of investment and attention given to arts has led in part to Brexit. In particular, I'd like to consider the declining numbers of secondary school pupils in Wales studying modern languages, although I appreciate this was out of the scope of this specific inquiry. We've seen a 29 per cent fall in language GCSE entries in Wales in five years, which is a bigger fall than the rest of the UK, and that decline will have an inevitable impact on levels of empathy and openness to understanding other cultures, because when we learn a language, we don't just learn the words, we learn to empathise, to see through the eyes of others by getting a direct outlook into how that culture views the world around them.
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have written a book about this phenomenon called Metaphors We Live By, and they draw attention to how metaphors are built deep into the structures of how we phrase everyday things. My favourite example is, in Italian, the way you say 'sunset' is 'tramonto' and that literally means 'between the mountains', because Italy has, for the most part, a very mountainous terrain, and they describe it exactly as they see it. Languages are windows onto this world, and if we shutter them out, then we close out all the light. I read Lakoff first when I was in university, and when my sister Rhianedd was in university, she studied French and Italian, and she had the immense privilege of living abroad for year, and I've always been very envious of the fact that she got to do that. She made friends for life who spoke not one, not two, but three, sometimes four languages at home every day.

Delyth Jewell AC: Because of that, Plaid Cymru believes strongly that it’s crucial that Wales remains within the Erasmus+ programme, whatever happens in future in terms of our relations with the European Union. When Professor Claire Gorrara from Cardiff University provided evidence to the committee on this issue, before I joined the committee, she said that she would describe this programme as one that is at the very heart of the linguistic and intercultural well-being of Wales.
She also described what she referred to as 'linguaphobia', suggesting that this was a direct result of the climate created by Brexit. She described a perception that people who don’t speak English, but who speak other languages, are not a full part of the community. Certainly, we see anecdotal evidence that people are being insulted for speaking other languages on the street, particularly on public transport and elsewhere. My concern is that this trend will continue.
Professor Gorrara also highlighted research undertaken by the British Council, which found that a third of the schools that responded believed that Brexit was having a negative impact on parents' and pupils' attitudes towards modern foreign languages.

Delyth Jewell AC: Bethan noted that Brexit would create the biggest financial shock of our lifetimes to arts and heritage, and I agree with that reading, and to compound that financial impact, our young people and our children will grow up without the same opportunities available to them as others have had, and that's a more fundamental shock to our very soul as a nation. It concerns me profoundly, this is something close to my heart as well, and I don't know how we can even begin to process that loss.

Bethan Sayed AC: Diolch, Delyth. I think your analysis is really inspiring in the sense that you've come at it from a different perspective as a new Assembly Member with a new outlook on what we can be looking at in terms of this committee, in relation to modern language and the loss of the arts, and how this may have led to some of the issues that led to Brexit—diminution of local provision, theatres closing in our communities—and how that then leads to a lack of opportunity in that regard, and I think that's right for you to say.
And I think, in terms of co-operation, culturally between our nation and others, young people now are given the opportunity to travel. Going back to orchestras, because this is what I know, you can go and perform in a European country as I did—I went to Germany—and then they come back and you share those experiences, they stay here, they become part of your culture for a little while, and you learn more about the world. And I think that is the issue that we're going to find with Brexit, that we will see the world, perhaps, from a more superficial level and that's not good for anybody, because we can have so much to learn from different countries.
But the linguaphobia, I think, is something that we have to discuss beyond this particular committee inquiry as well, because, you know, I'm sure you have, and on these benches we've had people saying that they are fearful sometimes to speak Welsh in some places because they are being told not to speak a foreign language, when, actually, it's the language of their own country. So, that's totally preposterous. But thank you for bringing those new insights into the committee's remit and that's something, in relation to modern languages, perhaps the education committee—not that I want to give work to Lynne Neagle as the Chair—but, in relation to modern languages, it's certainly something that is reaching crisis point and needs addressing.

And, finally, Suzy Davies.

Suzy Davies AC: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I thank the committee for this report, specifically the section on the Welsh language? The Welsh language is a cross-cutting issue, of course, for the Government, so perhaps some of my questions may be a matter for the Minister, rather than the Chair, but I would like to hear from both of you, if possible.
The future of the Welsh language doesn’t exist in a vacuum, so I’m pleased to see reference to agriculture and the relatively high percentage of Welsh speakers in that sector. The language was given scant regard in ‘Brexit and our land’, and readers should look at the issue of language in that document, where there was no evidence provided. I’m eager to know, therefore, what assurances the Minister gave to the committee that Welsh language impact assessments were an integral part of the Government’s process in preparing for Brexit, particularly a 'no deal' Brexit, because it wasn’t clear in the evidence provided to other committees.
Specifically, the report refers to the threat of losing structural funds in the poorest areas of Welsh-speaking Wales, but the same threat exists to poorer areas of Wales where the Welsh language is not commonly spoken, and that’s also a problem. These are the areas of Wales where we’re trying to increase the use of the language for its own sake, of course, but also as an additional skill, which will become more relevant in the jobs market, and that will contribute to social mobility and so on. The committee heard that the Minister for economy and other Ministers were considering this as part of the UK prosperity fund, or the use of the Welsh Government transitional fund. I don’t know whether any of this came up, but if it did, I would like to hear a little more about that.
I agree entirely with the statement that Wales benefits from the ability to promote itself as a nation that is agile in a linguistic sense in a market that is becoming more and more globalised. This is the thinking behind our policy, as Welsh Conservatives, for a trilingual Wales, launched a few years ago, which is still a central part of my own thinking as the opposition spokesperson on education. That general principle was noted by the Minister for Education at the time, and it became part of Government policy, so I would like to receive some assurance from the Minister, perhaps, that that remains the case, in terms of Government policy. Thank you. That was for the Minister. Thanks.

Bethan Sayed AC: I’ll be responding, sorry.

Suzy Davies AC: Yes, to start.

Bethan Sayed AC: Yes, sorry. [Laughter.] Unfortunately, because it’s a statement from me, it’s not the Minister who’ll be responding, but the Minister is here. It is possible, because many questions have been directed to the Minister from Members, that we could write, on the basis of the contributions here, to the Minister. She’s nodding her head contentedly with that, so we’ll do that as a result of this statement.
I can only go back to what I said in the statement, in terms of the language and agriculture. We have asked the Minister to provide more clarity to us, in terms of the possible impact of Brexit on the Welsh language, and discussions have happened with the Welsh Language Commissioner, but we need to find out more, if possible, from the Minister on the nature of those discussions, because, as Suzy Davies says, that’s very important. Also, as you said, it’s part of all parts of Government and it needs to be mainstreamed into the Brexit work undertaken by every Minister—it’s not just a matter for one Minister. The language, the arts and heritage—they’re important to, I would think, all of the Ministers here.
In terms of the prosperity fund, I’m not sure that we’ve had any kind of sight of what we might get and the detail of that. So, we’ll be lobbying, certainly, to ensure that the language is part of any prosperity fund, and that we’d also have some kind of control over where that money is spent in Wales. So, I’d ask you, as members of the Conservative Party, to go back to them, with respect, and say that we need input on how that's spent in Wales, because the language is a vital part of our ecosystem here, which is, perhaps, different to other parts of Britain.
So, thank you for the questions, and we’ll be framing those in a letter to the Minister for international relations in order to ensure that these issues, which, perhaps, don’t have so much investment or so much discussion as we’d like in the Brexit discussions—we’ve been able to have that priority here today. So, I’d like to thank you all for your contributions.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I thank the committee Chair.
Before we move on to discuss the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill, it’s my pleasure to announce the result of the secret ballot for Chair of the Petitions Committee, and all results will be announced. Therefore, Janet Finch-Saunders, 25 votes; Mark Isherwood, 14 votes; and one abstention. I therefore declare that Janet Finch-Saunders is elected Chair of the Petitions Committee. Many congratulations to Janet Finch-Saunders.

6. Debate: Stage 3 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill

Amendments marked [R] mean that the Member has declared either a registrable interest under Standing Order 2 or relevant interest under Standing Orders 13 or 17 when tabling the amendment.

We move on, therefore, to the debate on Stage 3 of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill.

Group 1: Gender-neutral language (Amendments 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 16, 21)

The first group of amendments relate to gender-neutral language. Amendment 22 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 22 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you very much, Llywydd. As this is my first contribution to today’s proceedings, I would like to make some general remarks, with your permission.
Our aim as a committee in this Bill, of course, is to strengthen the role of the ombudsman in order to protect the most vulnerable in our society, to improve social justice, and to drive improvement in public services and complaint-handling. On behalf of the Finance Committee, I am very grateful to those who have been willing to engage with us and to contribute to our thinking as the Bill has developed.
I would like to thank all Members of the Assembly, particularly the members of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill to date. The Finance Committee was pleased to be able to accept almost all Stage 1 amendments and, where necessary, I brought forward Stage 2 amendments to address the issues raised. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Welsh Government for its engagement with us and for their contribution to the Bill’s development.
Therefore, in turning to the specific amendments in this first group, I move amendment 22 and speak to all amendments in the group.
At Stage 2, I tabled amendments to change the drafting style in the Bill to ensure terms in the new provisions were gender neutral. Those amendments applied only to the new provisions being inserted, not to restate the 2005 Act. I indicated that, should those amendments be agreed, I intended to table amendments at Stage 3, so that the whole Bill is gender neutral, and this is what I'm doing here. So, this does ensure that the new provisions and the restated provisions meet with the Assembly’s legislative drafting style of being non-gender specific. And I would urge, therefore, Members to support that by supporting all amendments in this group.

I call on the Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the Member in charge, Llyr Gruffydd, for the detailed amendments he is proposing today, making the final technical changes needed to ensure that the Bill operates effectively.
I'm glad that this group of amendments finishes the task that Llyr started at Stage 2 by removing gendered terminology from the face of the Bill and ensuring that legislation is gender neutral. I'm looking forward to hearing Members' views on the Bill during the debate today, and I'm grateful for the way in which Llyr Gruffydd has been very collaborative in the way in which he has approached the Bill and I would advise supporting all amendments in this group.

Does Llyr Gruffydd want to respond?

Llyr Gruffydd AC: No.

The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to, therefore. Does any Member object? Amendment 22 is agreed to.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 23.

Amendment 23 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 23 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 24, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 24 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Does any Member object?Amendment 24 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 25, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 25 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 25 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 26, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 26 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 26 is agreed, therefore.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Group 2: Appointment of Ombudsman (Amendments 44, 45)

The next group of amendments is group 2, and they relate to the appointment of the ombudsman. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 44. I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Suzy Davies.

Amendment 44 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move amendment 44 and I'll be speaking to amendment 44 and 45. Both of them relate to the appointment of the ombudsman and the Assembly's power to waive certain restrictions imposed on the ombudsman after leaving office, as set out in Schedule 1. Amendment 44 clarifies that the Assembly is required to determine the terms and conditions of appointment for an ombudsman or acting ombudsman prior to appointment, including remuneration. Members probably know that the Assembly is already responsible for setting those terms and conditions under the Bill, but that is in accordance with the 2005 legislation. This amendment will mean that the obligation to do so is clearly set out in current law, and restating this responsibility aligns well with the Government's own direction on consolidation. 
Amendment 45 relates to the provision in Schedule 1 to the Bill that disqualifies a former ombudsman or acting ombudsman for a specified period from holding certain offices or positions connected to a listed authority, unless an Assembly committee approves otherwise. This amendment changes the reference from an Assembly committee to the Assembly itself. As introduced, the Bill delegated this power to the Assembly Commission, and at Stage 2 the Member in charge amended this to refer to an Assembly committee. But during Stage 2 proceedings, the Member in charge acknowledged that an amendment might be brought forward on behalf of the Commission in this respect. 
Now, my amendment 43, which is debated in a later group, will, however, provide for the Assembly to delegate these functions to an Assembly committee via Standing Orders, should it consider that an effective way forward. But the principle must be that it is a matter for this Assembly as a whole to take statutory responsibility for any change to statutory requirements made by this Assembly as a whole, and we'll perhaps discuss that again in a later group. Thank you.

Rebecca Evans AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we've heard, these amendments, along with those in groups 11 and 12, update the way powers are conferred upon the Assembly. Conferring powers upon the Assembly as a whole and making provisions for them to be delegated to a committee, sub-committee or Chair by Standing Orders allows the flexibility for the Assembly to determine the most appropriate level to exercise those powers based on the current committee structure. This will bring the provisions of the ombudsman Bill in line with other legislation, such as the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, and I'm happy to support all the amendments in this group.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I also will be supporting these amendments today, as I will with all of the amendments tabled in the name of Suzy Davies. These amendments provide greater clarity to the provisions in the Bill around the appointment of the ombudsman or an acting ombudsman, ensuring that the Assembly determines the terms of appointment. This is a sensible approach to appoint to this important independent role.

Suzy Davies to respond.

Suzy Davies AC: Just briefly to thank those who contributed to this part of this debate, and for taking on board the arguments. I think there's an important principle involved with this and, as the Minister said, this actually aligns this Bill with other Bills that are attempting to do something similar. So, I'm grateful for the response.

The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 44 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Suzy Davies, amendment 45.

Amendment 45 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 45 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 27.

Amendment 27 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, therefore amendment 27 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 28.

Amendment 28 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 28 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 29.

Amendment 29 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 29 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 3: Investigation of a health related service: Costs recovery (Amendments 30, 6, 8, 9)

Which brings us to group 3 of the amendments, and these relate to the investigation of a health-related service costs recovery. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 30. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 30 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 30 and I'll speak to all amendments in this group. Now, amendment 30 confirms that, where the ombudsman has recovered costs incurred as a result of obstruction caused by a provider of health-related services, the ombudsman can retain those recovered costs and does not have to pay them into the Welsh consolidated fund. This provision is similar to the provision that exists in the Bill enabling the ombudsman to retain any fees charged by the ombudsman for supplying copies of reports. So, it introduces greater consistency.
Amendment 6 amends the cross-referencing in section 16, clarifying precisely when a provider of health-related services is deemed to be a listed authority. The effect of this amendment will be that the provider of a health-related service will, for example, receive copies of reports when an investigation relates to the provider. Likewise, when a provider of health-related services is being investigated, the provider is given the same chance to comment on the investigation as a listed authority is given.
Amendments 8 and 9 insert two new sections, which clarify the procedure for recovering certain costs from providers of health-related services. These amendments will ensure that the ombudsman has a clear and efficient way of recovering certain costs from providers of health-related services. Amendment 8 relates to the ombudsman being able to recover costs where he has investigated a health-related service as part of an investigation into a listed authority. This covers where the provider of the health-related service has obstructed the ombudsman or has done something that would constitute contempt of court if the proceedings were in the High Court. Should this happen, the ombudsman may serve a costs recovery notice and amendment 9 makes provision regarding serving a costs recovery notice.

Mark Isherwood AC: I just seek clarification on one point, if I may. Although more detail is given to cost recovery under these amendments and there's been some narrowing of the scope and circumstances in which a healthcare provider can avoid liability for obstruction and contempt under amendment 8, can the Member in charge provide any further clarification of the policy reasons behind the changes made under amendment 8?

Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: Speaking first to amendments 8 and 9, these amendments do not change the intention of this section. They aim to ensure that the ombudsman is able to recover costs incurred when they have been obstructed by a private healthcare provider.
It is vital that there is a disincentive in the Bill to obstructing the ombudsman, and that private health companies enable the ombudsman to properly determine where fault lies in a public-private healthcare pathway. The need for a power to recover such costs was identified in the original draft of the Bill. However, the original provisions on cost recovery in the Bill would not have functioned as was intended, and the public purse would have to bear the costs of any additional work resulting from obstruction.
Whilst I hope these provisions will not need to be used, I’m grateful to the Member in charge for tabling these amendments and ensuring that the ombudsman will have an effective and enforceable power, should they need it, to prevent the Welsh taxpayer from covering the costs of obstructive behaviour from private providers.
Amendment 6 clarifies the cross-references in the Bill to ensure private health services are captured by the correct provisions in the Bill that refer to listed authorities.
Finally, amendment 30 allows the ombudsman to retain costs recovered rather than returning them to the Welsh consolidated fund. As these costs can only be recovered when they've already been incurred, this is a reasonable change to prevent the ombudsman from needing to absorb extra costs in-year and ensure their resources can be dedicated as agreed by the Finance Committee in that year’s statement.
I’m happy to support the Member in charge's amendments in this group and I would urge Members to do the same and ensure this Bill operates effectively.

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you, Llywydd. Just in response to Mark Isherwood, I don't think that, actually, there is a policy change here. This is about a clear, more efficient and more certain procedure for recovering costs, which includes as well, I'd say, relying on magistrates' courts for appeals. So, I don't accept the assertion that there is a substantial policy change here. It's very much offering that clarity and efficiency in the way that the Bill is written. So, I would encourage Members to support the amendments that I've put forward and hope very much that they will do so.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 30 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 31.

Amendment 31 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question isthat amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 31 is agreed to.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 32, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 32 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 32 is agreed to.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 33.

Amendment 33 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 33 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 34.

Amendment 34 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 34 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 35, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 35 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 35 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 36, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 36 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 36 is agreed, therefore.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 4: Auditor General: Laying the certified accounts (Amendment 49)

That brings us to group 4. This group of amendments relates to the auditor general laying the certified accounts. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 49, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 49 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Mark Isherwood AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 49, which relates to the four-month flexibility period the Wales Audit Office is able to grant for the public services ombudsman's accounts, which was inserted at Stage 2. While the Auditor General for Wales asked for this change at Stage 1, there are some questions as to how this would apply to other public bodies outside of the Bill's scope. Clearly, the constraints, the reasons and justification for the change, apply to most, if not all, public bodies, and the issue here is clarification where a body with oversight of those other public bodies may be granted something not available to those other public bodies.
It was clear from the auditor general's written evidence that flexibility was needed due to the fact that problems arising from such a deadline had happened with the annual accounts for Natural Resources Wales in 2016-17. We agree that such an approach is needed. However, because of the nature of the Bill, this will only apply to the ombudsman and not other bodies.
During Stage 1, the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee stated that they had asked the Member in charge whether he would consider amending the Bill in relation to the four-month deadline. The Member in charge said it was good practice to have audited accounts within four months, but admitted that the missing tool was the ability to vary it in particular circumstances. However, he was not sure if it would be appropriate to change it with regard to one body when the auditor general audits a range of bodies across Wales. As such, although it is clear there is worthwhile intent behind the lifting of the fourth-month deadline, the Minister must provide some information on the precedent this will set for other publicly managed bodies. So, I'd be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether she intends that this clause should set a precedent for the lifting of the four-month deadline to apply to other public bodies, and, if not, what is the reasoning behind the Minister's intention to only include the ombudsman in this exemption—not only within this legislation, but as we move forward?

Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Amendment 49 would counteract an amendment agreed by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee during Stage 2 scrutiny. That amendment was agreed following the committee’s own Stage 1 recommendation, based on evidence from the Auditor General for Wales that he needed greater flexibility in relation to the accounts deadline. Reinstating a firm four-month deadline, with no flexibility, would risk placing conflicting obligations on the auditor general. The auditor general could be required to both lay the certified accounts by a rigid deadline and to be satisfied that the ombudsman’s expenditure has been incurred lawfully, and their resources have been used economically, efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013 requires the auditor general to abide by the code of audit practice and give opportunity to third parties and audited bodies to comment on audit findings. This means that, in practice, the auditor general is not wholly in control of the four-month deadline, and it is reasonable to allow him the flexibility to explain why it can't be met.
To ensure that the auditor general and National Assembly have the right information available to properly scrutinise the ombudsman’s use of public funds, I cannot support this amendment.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: As we've heard at Stage 2, the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee agreed to an amendment that provides the auditor general with flexibility to submit certified accounts and reportafter the default four-month deadline. Now, this amendment seeks to remove that flexibility, of course. Now, the mechanism was included to address, as we've heard, conflicting statutory duties placed on the auditor general: firstly, to lay a copy of the certified accounts and report no later than four months after they're submitted, but also to meet the requirements of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013 to abide by the auditor general’s own code of audit practice, which requires that the opportunity is given to third parties and audited bodies to comment on audit findings. Now that could take it, of course, beyond the four-month deadline.The Bill requires that, if the auditor general relies on this flexibility, then the auditor general must explain to the Assembly why a copy of the certified accounts and report will not be laid before the four-month deadline, and must then proceed to lay a copy as soon as reasonably practicable.
Now, this issue, of course, came to light with the accounts of Natural Resources Wales, when the auditor general needed more than four months to ensure the financial issues with NRW’s accounts were fully investigated.When auditing Welsh public bodies, there is no provision within legislation for the auditor general to request an extension to the statutory four-month deadline—as there is, by the way, for UK resource accounts under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Now, ideally, we would have a similar provision here in Wales, and I accept that this mechanism only addresses the conflicting obligations placed on the auditor general in relation to certifying the ombudsman’s accounts and reports. Clearly, this Bill isn't an appropriate mechanism to deal with this conflict in relation to the audited accounts of other public bodies. However, I would hope this issue is something that the Welsh Government will consider, going forward. Additionally, there is an opportunity, of course, to consider the issue as part of the Finance Committee’s upcoming inquiry into the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013. So, with those comments, I would ask Members to resist amendment 49.

Mark Isherwood to respond.

Mark Isherwood AC: Diolch. This was intended as a probing amendment. As I stated, we do see worthwhile intent behind the lifting of the four-month deadline within this Bill. I regret that, in her response, the Minister, however, didn't respond to my specific questions, which were the purpose of the probing amendment, which is difficult. Following on from the Member in charge's response, however, I hope that this will lead to the Welsh Government considering and sharing with the Assembly its wider intentions over whether this might begin to set a precedent for other public bodies, and, again, if the Finance Committee inquiry that the Member in charge refers to could also address that, it would clearly be to mutual benefit; it might tease out some of the threats and opportunities involved with this. We weren't intending to object; we were seeking the clarity that, unfortunately, we've not received in the Minister's response, but I think the Member in charge's contribution was very helpful, and we will support.

The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will have an electronic vote on amendment 49. Open the vote. Close the vote. None in favour, no abstentions and 47 against. Therefore, amendment 49 is not agreed.

Amendment 49: For: 0, Against: 47, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 37, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 37 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I move.

The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 37 is agreed to.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 5: Drafting corrections (Amendments 2, 7, 10, 12, 13)

Therefore, we move on to group 5 of amendments. These amendments relate to drafting corrections. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 2, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 2 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you, Llywydd. I move amendment 2 and will speak to the other amendments in the group too. This is a group of amendments that address a small number of drafting corrections. For example, amendments 2 and 13 ensure that all references to 'discontinuing an investigation' are consistent in the Welsh text. Amendment 7 deletes a superfluous word in the Welsh text. Amendment 10 inserts the word 'neu'—'or'—at the end of a specific section. And, finally, amendment 12 corrects a minor drafting error in the Bill with reference to a sub-section rather than a section. So, we very much hope that, as these are minor drafting issues, Memberswill support the amendments.

Rebecca Evans AC: I'm very happy to support these amendments.

Llyr doesn't need to respond, therefore, the question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 2 is therefore agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 6: Own-initiative investigations (Amendments 3, 4, 14, 15, 19)

Group 6 is the next group of amendments, and these relate to own-initiative investigations. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 3, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 3 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I move amendment 3 and I'll speak to all the amendments in this group, which relate to the ombudsman's powers to undertake own-initiative investigations. Amendment 3 clarifies that any decision of the ombudsman to, for example, begin an own-initiative investigation is subject to both section 4(1) and section 4(2), section 4 is the section relating to power to investigate on the ombudsman's own initiative.
Amendment 14 has the same effect as amendment 3, only in respect of own-initiative investigations under Part 5, which, of course,deals with social care and palliative care.
Amendments 4 and 15 clarify that, where the ombudsman revises the published criteria for own-initiative investigations in a material way, then, those revisions will be subject to the same Assembly procedure that applied to the first criteria, which is identified in section 5 of the Bill. They will be subject to a negative resolution procedure, in that they will be laid before the Assembly, and unless they are annulled before the end of a 40-day period, they can then be published.
Amendment 19 clarifies that the ombudsman has a duty to inform and consult specified persons when carrying out own-initiative investigations. So, again, these amendments are pretty technical in nature—no policy change, merely strengthening and providing clarity, and I would urge Members to support them.

Rebecca Evans AC: As we've heard, amendments 4 and 43 clarify the way in which the subsections of the relevant sections inter-relate, stating for the avoidance of doubt that the ombudsman's decision whether to begin, continue or discontinue an investigation is subject to the provisions in subsection (1), which specify the matters the ombudsman is entitled to investigate.
Amendments 5 and 44 are also updated for the sake of clarity without changing the intended policy for approving the criteria for own-initiative investigations.
Finally, amendment 19 clarifies the circumstances in which the ombudsman has a duty to consult other commissioners, as appropriate. This ensures that the ombudsman must consult, whenever they investigate on their own initiative, even if they could have investigated some or all of the same matter as a normal complete investigation. These amendments do not change the intended policy of the Bill, but will provide clarity on the way in which it's intended to work in practice, and I hope Members will join me in supporting them today.

Llyr Gruffydd, do you want to respond? No. Therefore, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 4.

Amendment 4 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 4 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 7: Making complaints (Amendments 5, 17, 18)

Group 7 is the next group, and this group relates to making complaints. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 5 and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 5 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 5 and I'll speak to all three amendments in this group. The Bill, as introduced, included a provision that enabled a complaint to be made orally and included a safeguard that the ombudsman must explain to the person making the oral complaint what it means to make an oral complaint. It means that the oral complaint may be treated as a formal complaint that can be investigated.
Amendment 5 changes the term 'orally' to 'other than in writing' to ensure a more inclusive term is used so that the safeguard applies to any complaint that is not made in writing. The amendment means, for example, that the safeguard will apply, yes, to oral complaints, but also to complaints made in British Sign Language and complaints, indeed, made in any other form that is not in writing.
Amendment 17 has the same effect as amendment 5, only in respect of investigations under Part 5 dealing with social care and palliative care.
Amendment 18 clarifies, as well, that the reference to 'person' includes any person who made a complaint and not just, of course, the person aggrieved. So, I would urge Members to support these amendments.

Rebecca Evans AC: These are important changes to ensure that the ombudsman's services are accessible to everyone in Wales and to ensure that legislation doesn't create unnecessary barriers that might exclude vulnerable people. I'm very happy to support all of the amendments in this group.

Llyr doesn't want to reply, therefore, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 5 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 6, Llyr Gruffydd.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is agreed.
I have missed amendment 38, apparently. Therefore, I'll go back and ask for a vote on amendment 38. Is it moved?

Amendment 38 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Yes.

Yes. So, the question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, therefore, amendment 38 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Which takes me where? Amendment 6? Okay. Is amendment 6 moved?

Amendment 6 (Llyr Gruffydd)moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Yes.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 7, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 7 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 7 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 8, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 8 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 8 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 9, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 9 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 9 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 10, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 10 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 10 is agreed, therefore.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 8: Nolan Principles (Amendment 46)

That brings us to group 8, which relates to the Nolan principles. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 46 and I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment—Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 46 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Mark Isherwood AC: Diolch, Llywydd. I've retabled this amendment from Stage 2, as I wish to seek reassurance from the Member in charge that the ombudsman will take the Nolan principles into consideration when his office is undertaking investigations into complaints against public bodies.
As I outlined at Stage 2, while the ombudsman can also view the Nolan principles as overriding, he is unable to hold public bodies to account via the principles, as evidenced within correspondence I've received from a member of the public. In his responses to that member of the public, the ombudsman stated
'I recognise that you have framed your complaint with reference to the Nolan principles but the Ombudsman, whilst obviously recognising that adherence to these principles is necessary for higher standards in public services, would not, given his role and their general nature, use them to determine complaints about public bodies.'
He also stated:
'So I hope this provides an explanation of our approach and the context in which we operate. It is not that Nolan is inapplicable, more that our interest is in ensuring administrative justice to the people of Wales is not best served by simply restricting or satisfying ourselves by these overriding principles alone.'
As I outlined at Stage 2, these two statements do appear to be a contradiction. The Welsh Government also abides by the Nolan principles, as do elected Members in public office. Publicly employed individuals may also be accountable to Nolan principles, but there's no recourse for complainants to use the principles, other than through the expensive and cumbersome route of judicial review. It is not that these should be overriding principles, but that they should be integral.
Furthermore, the Nolan principles are summed up thus: the ombudsman provides no alternative set of principles, yet, in judging issues such as good standards of administration to determine complaints about public bodies, it is important to judge against an accepted standard of reference. The Nolan principles, we contend, provide that standard. They were established for that purpose. Among other things, they meet the criteria of law produced by the UK Government Committee on Standards in Public Life; they set a UK-wide benchmark; they apply to all in public life—officials and elected representatives; they're endorsed by the Welsh Government, not least in statutory instruments; and they're endorsed by the standards committee of Welsh councils.
The ombudsman claims that the Nolan principles are general. They're not. Principles are guides, they're not intended to be detailed instructions. The Nolan principles are very clear and specifically designed to be relevant to the public sector. The ombudsman claims that placing the principles on the face of the Bill serves as an unhelpful detraction from the existing powers he has to investigate maladministration. Yet, there still remains a gap in how he will determine whether public bodies will be held to account through the principles.
For instance, while he notes that there is a very wide power of maladministration, which allows him to take into account the Nolan principles, conversely, the power means that he also does not have to take them into account. Since I argued the case for the Nolan principles at Stage 2 of the Bill, I've been made increasingly awareof concerns that some public sector bodies and their employees are distorting their interpretation of the Nolan principles when applied to themselves. Further, where allegations regarding the conduct of officers are integral to the wider complaint submitted to the public services ombudsman, we've too often seen ombudsman reports quoting lines to justify their decision not to uphold the complaint that can be identified as having come from the same officers, actually matching, word for word, letters received directly from the local authority and signed by the same officers.
Elected members can be referred to the ombudsman on alleged breaches of the code of conduct, but the ombudsman cannot investigate complaints against officers. That is right. Instead, these are left to local authorities to determine as their employer. However, complaints to the ombudsman regarding public bodies frequently relate to matters that are set in the context of conduct by officers. Although the subject of the complaint cannot be objectively investigated without wider consideration of any context relating to the conduct of officers, in accordance with the Nolan principles, we instead see cases where, as quoted, the ombudsman would not use the Nolan principles to determine complaints.
It is welcome that the updated explanatory memorandum to the Bill now includes the Nolan principles and explains that the ombudsman and vested authorities are required to have due regard to the principles in carrying out their work. However, given the concerns I've listed, I'd be grateful for confirmation from the Member in charge of how, in the absence of the principles on the face of the Bill, he expects to ensure that the ombudsman takes the Nolan principles into account when investigating any and every complaint that does, directly or indirectly, involve the conduct of the officers involved with that complaint. Thank you.

Rebecca Evans AC: This amendment would require the ombudsman to consider the Nolan principles when undertaking their functions in relation to a listed authority. The Nolan principles set out the behaviours expected of people who hold public office. They set out clear expectations about conduct and about how people are expected to contribute to delivering public services. The Nolan principles apply to individuals in public office, and not organisations. The principles focus on behaviour and culture, rather than processes, and are enshrined in the relevant codes of conduct for the behaviour of individuals in public service. The ombudsman investigates service failure and maladministration. The focus ensures they comment on the actions of an authority, rather than giving a view on individuals, except in the ombudsman's role in relation to the councillor code of conduct. This allows the ombudsman to retain the trust of public bodies, and the public, as an impartial, independent complaints handler and regulator. I would urge Members not to support this amendment.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: This amendment places a duty on the ombudsman to have regard to how a listed authority has had regard to the Nolan principles. Now, as we all know, because I'm sure we read them every day, the Nolan principles apply seven principles to anyone who works as a public office holder, including people who are elected or appointed to public office, or people appointed to work in, for example, the civil service, local government, health, education, social and care services, all those in other sectors as well that deliver public services. Now, we rehearsed some of these arguments at Stage 2, and as I said at Stage 2, I believe that an onus already exists on listed authorities to have regard to the Nolan principles. And the ombudsman's role is to investigate service failure and maladministration, not to investigate whether public authorities are complying with general principles of selflessness and leadership, et cetera. So, whilst I wasn't able to support this amendment at Stage 2, I have nevertheless ensured the revised explanatory memorandum now makes it explicit that in holding public office or working in the public sector, the ombudsman and the listed authorities are required to have regard to the Nolan principles. So, for these reasons, I won't be supporting amendment 46, and I would urge other Members to do likewise.

Mark Isherwood to respond.

Mark Isherwood AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Minister and the Member in charge. Clearly, there are many people who have contacted me, and no doubt others, who have concerns about their own experiences where their complaints, which weren't directly about an officer or officers, nonetheless had at their core allegations regarding the conduct of an officer or officers, and hence, this issue has been raised with us. It's not something we've thought up just to cause further problems for the Assembly or the ombudsman's office. We recognise the further work that the Member in charge has put into this, and acknowledge and welcome, as I stated, the update to the explanatory memorandum. Therefore, although I'll withdraw this amendment, we still think this is a pertinent issue meriting further consideration as we move forward, where, again, too often I've seen the voice of the person or persons to whom the allegations apply being quoted as one of the reasons not to uphold a complaint, when hopefully the objectivity of an inquiry would ensure that that could not happen. Thank you.

Mark Isherwood has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Is there any objection to the withdrawal of the amendment? Amendment 46 is therefore withdrawn.

Amendment 46 withdrawn in accordance with Standing Order 12.27.

Group 9: Complaints-handling procedures (Amendments 47, 11, 48)

Group 9 is the next group of amendments, and they relate to complaints-handling procedures. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 47. I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 47 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Mark Isherwood AC: Diolch, Llywydd. We will be supporting amendment 11 as we believe the Assembly should be involved in scrutinising any significant changes the ombudsman may make to the statement of principles as far as practicable.
Amendment 48 has been submitted where confirmation is needed to ensure that the ombudsman considers resources of town and community councils. Amendment 48 reiterates the concerns that we raised at Stage 2 on the ability of town and community councils as listed authorities under the Bill to carry out their duties. For example, the Bill contains many requirements and time limits for listed authorities, which includes a six-month time limit for listed authorities to submit their own complaints-handling procedure.
At Stage 1 I outlined that, while supporting the Bill's application to town and community councils, we can see from both the perspective of the ombudsman and town and community councils how burdensome and onerous the duties could be to undertake when staffing and resources are minimal. Town and community councils currently number over 730 in Wales, with 8,000 councillors. As evidenced by the auditor general in his report on town and community councils, some councils are already struggling to apply existing statutory duties. As I noted at Stage 2, nearly 100 town and community councils had not been able to submit their audits by the cut-off date of 30 November 2018. Well over 340 town and community councils received a qualified audit opinion in the same year—double the amount in 2016-17. Moreover, 24 councils have yet to make proper arrangements for online publication of documents as required by the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013. Auditors also identified issues in the accounting statements of 180 councils; 270 councils did not complete the annual return fully before submission for audit.
Concerns, therefore, about the ability of town and community councils to undertake their duties have run throughout the Bill's progress. I refer back to the evidence of Cardiff city council, raised about the Bill's provisions, highlighting the risk of the ombudsman's guidance being 'too prescriptive' and not allowing
'for a degree of flexibility for local authorities to handle and investigate complaints in a manner that suits their size and structures.'
Additionally, the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales were concerned about the impact the provisions may have on smaller organisations—views also expressed by Blaenau Gwent council, which stated in evidence that some smaller councils do not have sufficient resources to have complaints officers whose sole task is to take and log complaints. Further, Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn Town Council said in their evidence to the committee that
'any such model or standard policies/procedures should be proportionate to the scale of community and town councils and also recognise that it may require transitional costs.'
Finally, and most significantly, One Voice Wales, representing town and community councils in Wales, have written to me stating that they do have concerns about the model complaints procedure. They further noted that most town and community councils in Wales are incredibly small and employ just one clerk, who would likely work on a part-time basis. As such, it is still difficult to see whether smaller town and community councils with relatively limited resourceswill be able to keep up with the provisions outlined under the Bill without due consideration by the ombudsman.
It is welcome, again, that the explanatory memorandum notes that it is up to the ombudsman's discretion in respect of which listed authorities publish model complaints-handling procedures, but it is worthwhile to place on record the expectation that the ombudsman will consider the resources of listed authorities, and at least work with their representative bodies to ensure the complaints procedure is adequately adjusted to take into account the limited resources of town and community councils in Wales.
Regarding amendment 47, this deletes the procedure that applies to the publication by the ombudsman of the statement of principles, and replaces this with another procedure. The changes made to the ombudsman's statement of principles outlined by amendment 56 at Stage 2 mean there is little opportunity for the Assembly to properly scrutinise the principles before their introduction. This changes the process from affirmative to negative, and I believe represents a backward step, given the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's praise for the affirmative nature of the Bill at Stage 1. Although we recognise that this is a statement of principles rather than regulations, we contend that they're integral to the working of the model complaints-handling procedure, and thus should be afforded Assembly scrutiny. At the very least, the first statement of principles should have an affirmative procedure so that the Assembly has a chance to approve them. We therefore ask the Member in charge to explain his rationale for this change in direction. Why negative rather than affirmative?

Rebecca Evans AC: I'll begin by saying that I'm happy to support amendment 11. The Member in charge is proposing a welcome drafting update to ensure that the procedure by which the Assembly agrees the complaints-handling principles is clear bilingually in the Bill.
However, speaking to amendment 47, this would undo an amendment agreed by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee at Stage 2, which, as the Member in charge explained at the time, struck a better balance between the ombudsman's freedom to draft the statement of principles and the Assembly's ability to reject it, should we see fit.
The procedure that amendment 47 seeks to reinstate leaves a large degree of uncertainty for the ombudsman if the Assembly makes no resolution to approve the complaints-handling principles within the two-month period. In this case, the ombudsman would not know whether or not the Assembly supports the proposed criteria, whether there are any issues that we would like to see addressed, or whether it was simply an issue of timing and the criteria might be approved if they were tabled again. With no opportunity to influence Assembly proceedings, it would not be fair to ask the ombudsman to wait upon a motion being tabled in favour of their criteria before proceeding to implement the powers that the National Assembly has already debated in this Bill. I don't think the process that the Member suggests is necessary to ensure that the Assembly is content with the ombudsman's proposals. The passing of this Bill would signal the Assembly's desire that a statement of complaints-handling principles be made by the ombudsman, and if that proposal is not in line with our expectations, then the Assembly can reject it and instruct the ombudsman to reconsider.
Speaking to amendment 48, the Member raises a relevant point that the ombudsman will need to be proportionate when applying model complaints-handling procedures to listed authorities, particularly in the example of community councils, as he's proposed. This amendment, however, would require the ombudsman to consider the resources of community councils whenever they are developing a model complaints-handling procedure, even if that procedure were not intended to apply to community councils. This is not a proportionate way of achieving the Member's aim. It would lead to an unnecessary administrative burden on the ombudsman's complaints standards powers for all other bodies in Wales. The Bill already includes a requirement for the ombudsman to consult before applying model complaints-handling procedures to any body. This would allow any body concerned about the administrative burden of their proposals to raise the issue, and for the ombudsman to take a balanced view of the benefits of the complaints system against the costs of implementing it.
Furthermore, this legislation is founded upon the principle that the ombudsman is a trusted, independent complaints authority, appointed directly by, and accountable to, the National Assembly. If the Assembly is not content with the ombudsman's use of their powers, then this can be addressed through committee scrutiny of the ombudsman. Beyond this, in extreme cases, the ombudsman is subject to the normal public law recourse of judicial review, by which any unreasonable requirement could be challenged. With these accountability arrangements already in place, we should not be legislating on the assumption that the ombudsman will use their powers irresponsibly. I'm sure that the ombudsman will listen to the points that Members have raised in today's debate and consider them when determining the approach to model complaints procedures for public bodies. On this basis, I don't think this amendment is necessary, and I would ask Members not to support it or amendment 47 today.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I will start with my amendment, amendment 11, which clarifies that, where the ombudsman makes revisions to the complaints handling statement of principles in a material way, those revisions will be subject to the same Assembly procedure that applied to the first statement of principles. That is, they will be subject to a negative resolution procedure, in that they will be laid before the Assembly and, unless they are annulled before the end of a 40-day period, they can be published.
Turning to Mark's amendment 47, this amendment seeks to apply an affirmative resolution procedure to the first draft statement of principles that the ombudsman must lay before the Assembly. The Bill currently provides for the statement of principles to be subject to a negative resolution procedure, as we've heard. But, of course, this mirrors the procedure that applies to the own-initiative criteria that will be laid before the Assembly. I believe that the same negative resolution procedure should apply to both the criteria and the statement of principles, given that they are both the ombudsman's documents. That's the key point here, I think. It's the ombudsman that consults on them, he drafts them, he publishes them, and he enforces them. That's why the Welsh Ministers' regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. If the Welsh Ministers wish to amend the ombudsman's document, then it's only right that the affirmative procedure should apply. We have to remember that the ombudsman is an appointment independent of the Welsh Government and it wouldn't be right for changes to be made by Welsh Ministers not to be agreed in this Chamber. Therefore, I don't believe that amendment 47 is required.
Turning to Mark's amendment 48, this amendment puts a duty on the ombudsman to have regard to the resources of community councils when he is preparing 'the' model CHP, to use Mark's words. I am unable to support this amendment for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no 'the' model CHP. There are likely to be a number of different model complaints handling procedures, each tailored to the needs of different listed authorities. This in itself means the ombudsman can tailor 'a' model complaints handling procedure to the needs of community councils if—and it is an 'if'—the ombudsman decides to require community councils to comply with a model CHP. There is no obligation on the ombudsman to have a model CHP for community councils. Indeed, so far this financial year, the ombudsman has received in excess of 2,000 complaints in total and of these only 22 have related to community councils, out of, I think the Member said, around 730 such councils in Wales. So, I'd argue that the CHPs aren't necessarily aimed at problems with community councils.
Secondly, as a public authority, the ombudsman of course must act reasonably in everything he does. This would include having regard to the resources of any listed authority he is considering specifying as being subject to a model complaints handling procedure. And thirdly, I question why the ombudsman should have specific regard to the resources available to community councils when this consideration applies to the other listed authorities, such as county councils, local health boards and Social Care Wales, et cetera. So, I acknowledge the issue the amendment is seeking to address, and I have included some commentary on this issue in the revised explanatory memorandum to the Bill, but my view is that that sufficiently addresses the concerns expressed and, therefore, I would urge Members not to support that particular amendment.

Mark Isherwood, to respond.

Mark Isherwood AC: Diolch, Llywydd. In terms of amendment 47, the greatest strength that was acknowledged in the Bill at Stage 1 was the affirmative nature within in, hence the moving of this amendment, because there's little opportunity for the Assembly to properly scrutinise the principles before their introduction, at the very least at the first statement of principles. That is potentially a concern. I understand that the ombudsman's office, having received whatever this Bill ultimately concludes, is the body that will be drawing up the statement of principles, but there is the good old Platonic phrase, 'Who shall guard the guardians?' And much as the ombudsman must by definition be separate from this place—arm's length from this place—the Assembly, we believe, has a role in this context.
Regarding amendment 48, the Member in charge questioned why other larger bodies—and he named a number of larger bodies—would be treated differently. It's because they're larger bodies. This isn't to apply to every town and community council—many would have no reason not to meet the requirements detailed here. It only applies to those that, for resource reasons, as I outlined and as One Voice Wales has subsequently outlined in the correspondence I quoted, would find it practically, for practical purposes, difficult to meet this requirement. So, it's not a mandatory imposition applying to all public bodies or all bodies subject to the ombudsman's remit; it's only a discretionary power to be used when a body is likely to, or is known to, lack the resources to meet the requirement within the specified terms within the Bill. And we need to reflect that concern. We need to reflect the differentiation across the public sector, and particularly within town and community councils across Wales. It's not an excuse to allow bad performers off a bad performance. That needs to be addressed. It's a practical measure to help those who might do better in the future get to that point without penalising them for things that are beyond their control. I move.

The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote on amendment 47. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 47 is not agreed.

Amendment 47: For: 11, Against: 36, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 11, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 11 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 11 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 48, Mark Isherwood.

Are you moving—?

Amendment 48 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Mark Isherwood AC: Move.

Amendment 48. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote on amendment 48. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 48 is not agreed.

Amendment 48: For: 11, Against: 36, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

Amendment 12, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 12 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 12 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 13.

Amendment 13 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 13 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 14, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 14 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 14 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 15.

Amendment 15 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 15 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 16, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 16 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 16 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Llyr Gruffydd, amendment 17.

Amendment 17 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 17 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 18, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 18 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 18 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 19, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 19 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 19 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 10: Regulation making powers (Amendment 20)

Group 10 is the next group of amendments, and these relate to regulation-making powers. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 20. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the lead amendment.

Amendment 20 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you, Llywydd. I move amendment 20.
Section 65 of the Bill refers to the ombudsman working jointly with specified persons. Subsection 2 details the specified persons that the ombudsman is required to inform and consult, when investigating matters that could be the subject of an investigation by the specified persons. These are detailed on the face of the Bill, of course, namely the children’s commissioner. the older people's commissioner. the future generations commissioner. the Welsh Language Commissioner, and, where the matter relates to health and social care, the Welsh Ministers.
Subsection 2 can be amended by regulation subject to the affirmative procedure in order to add or remove specific persons. The purpose of this amendment is simply to confirm that regulations made under section 65(6) are to be made by Welsh Ministers.

Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: This amendment improves the drafting of the Bill, conferring an explicit regulatory power on the face of the Bill, rather than stating simply that regulations may be made. I'm very happy to support this amendment.

No response from Llyr Gruffydd. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 20 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 11: Review of Act (Amendments 39, 40, 41, 42)

The next group is group 11. These relate to review of the Act. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 39, and I call on Suzy Davies to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 39 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Diolch, Llywydd, and I move amendment 39, speaking to all the amendments in this group.
These amendments refer to section 72 of the Bill, which means that the Assembly has the opportunity to review the work of the ombudsman, something I'm sure we all approve of, particularly as the ombudsman is directly accountable to us. These amendments remove the reference to an Assembly committee from the face of the Bill, and replace it with a statutory duty on the Assembly to be responsible for that review. Because the whole Assembly makes the statute, I think we should adhere to the principle that the whole of the Assembly is responsible for reviewing it, and it's appropriate that the Bill places these functions on the Assembly, rather than directly on individual committees. As I mentioned before, we'll be talking about amendment 43 shortly, which permits the Assembly to delegate these functions to a committee, and it's through Standing Orders—that's the appropriate way of doing it, rather than placing on the face of the Bill a duty on the Assembly committee. So, I recommend these changes to all Members. Thank you.

Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: These amendments, as was the case with those that we debated in group 2, update the functions that are conferred upon the National Assembly, ensuring that functions are given to the Assembly, rather than directly to a committee. And, as with group 2, this will bring the Bill in line with other legislation, such as the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2011, and I am happy to support these amendments.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I am also happy to support this group of amendments. They make minor changes to the Bill to ensure that the obligations on the Assembly apply to the Assembly, rather than to an Assembly committee. When considered with amendment 43, which we will discuss in the next group, this will allow the Assembly, via Standing Orders, to decide how to undertake the statutory obligations placed on the Assembly by the Bill.

Does Suzy Davies want to respond?

Suzy Davies AC: Thank you, Llywydd. Just to thank Members for taking these amendments with serious consideration. Thank you.

The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 39 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 40, Suzy Davies.

Amendment 40 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Move.

Moved. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 40 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 41, Suzy Davies.

Amendment 41 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 41 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 42, Suzy Davies.

Amendment 42 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 42 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 12: Functions of the Assembly (Amendment 43)

Group 12 is the next group of amendments, and these relate to the functions of the Assembly. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 43, and I call on Suzy Davies to move that amendment. Suzy Davies.

Amendment 43 (Suzy Davies) moved.

Suzy Davies AC: Thank you again, Llywydd.

Suzy Davies AC: We've already mentioned—. Sorry, I move amendment 43, which I've already mentioned in previous debates. I don't need to rehearse it again, by the sound of it; Members have given an indication of their support for this. It's just a situation—. Just to confirm that it's the Assembly itself that has the responsibility for undertaking certain functions, rather than a committee directly, and it's up to the Assembly through Standing Orders to allow committees to perform those functions on our behalf. And I'm grateful for the early indication that this amendment will get support. Thank you.

Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: I'm very happy to support the amendment.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I too am happy to support amendment 43. As I said in the previous group, the amendment will allow us as an Assembly to make provision in Standing Orders for the exercise of functions relating to reviewing the Act and also appointing the ombudsman. This is similarto the way the Public Audit (Wales) Act works in relation to oversight of the auditor general and the Wales Audit Office.

Does Suzy Davies want to respond?

Suzy Davies AC: Just again to offer my thanks to Members.

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 43 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 21, Llyr Gruffydd.

Amendment 21 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Move.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 21 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 13: Overview 1 (Amendment 1)

That brings us to the final group of amendments, namely group 13, which relates to overview. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 1, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move and speak to the amendment.

Amendment 1 (Llyr Gruffydd) moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you, Llywydd. I move amendment 1. During Stage 2 proceedings, an amendment was agreed to insert section 71, which provides the authorisation to give a compliance notice to the ombudsman in relation to Welsh language standards. This amendment—amendment 1, which we’re discussing as part of this group—updates section 1 to ensure that the overview section of the Bill correctly reflects the contents of the Bill. It is quite a simple amendment, and I’m confident that Members will support it.

Minister.

Rebecca Evans AC: I'm happy to support this amendment, which updates the Bill’s overview to reflect the Government amendment agreed at Stage 2, which brings the ombudsman under the Welsh language standards.
I'd like to put on record my thanks to the Member in charge for the detailed work that he and the Assembly team supporting him have done in collaboration with the Government to improve this Bill. Between Stages 2 and 3, Llyr Gruffydd has tabled over 250 amendments, aiming to ensure that this Bill will effectively achieve its objectives and will be good law if it is agreed by the National Assembly. I hope Members will support this last amendment today and support the Bill’s progress.

Does Llyr Gruffydd want to reply?

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Just to emphasise, if I may, Llywydd, my thanks to everyone who’s engaged with the process to this point, with particular thanks to the clerks and legal team of the Finance Committee for all of their work in bringing us to this point in the process. May I also thank fellow Members for their support for the amendments that I have proposed today, in the hope that you will all see fit to support the one minor amendment remaining? Thank you, Llywydd.

The question is that the remaining amendment be agreed to, namely amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That means that we have reached the end of our Stage 3 considerations of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections of and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed. That concludes Stage 3 proceedings.

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

7. Welsh Conservatives debate: Natural Resources Wales

The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected.

The next item on the agenda is the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on Natural Resources Wales. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Motion NDM6989 Darren Millar
To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:
1. Notes the Welsh Government’s decision to merge the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales, and the Forestry Commission Wales with the formation of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in 2013.
2. Recognises the hard work of frontline staff in the organisation but acknowledges their dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in the decisions taken by senior management, as regularly expressed in staff surveys since NRW’s inception.
3. Regrets that NRW has systematically failed the people of Wales through a number of high-profile scandals, including:
a) serious failings in the handling of timber contracts which auditors, Grant Thornton, stated were so bad they 'heightened exposure to the risk of fraud';
b) the 'qualification' of the organisation’s accounts by the Wales Audit Office for three years running, indicating that there were questions over whether the organisation had acted within the rules;
c) the contradictory approach led by NRW when deciding to intervene on matters of public interest such as shooting on public land and nuclear mud dumping.
4. Calls on the Welsh Government to instigate an independent review/inquiry into the organisation’s failings and to investigate alternative proposals for the management of the natural resources of Wales.

Motion moved.

Andrew RT Davies AC: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Welcome to the field of dreams on a Wednesday afternoon after passing a bit of legislation and now into the debate session. It's good to see we've got a better turnout than we normally have on a Wednesday afternoon, we have here, for an opposition day debate. I don't think it might last and I think a cup of tea next door might be calling some Members. But we can try to hold you, and I am told there are a few doughnuts outside as well, if anyone wants them.
It is a real pleasure to move the debate this afternoon looking at some of the issues around Natural Resources Wales, its creation and obviously some of the well-publicised problems that that particular organisation has gone through over recent years, and how maybe we may be able to address some of those shortcomings in such an important part of the Welsh fabric, i.e. our natural environment, and what we can do to make sure that all the tools are available (a) to protect it and (b) to enhance it.
If I can just deal with the amendments that have been tabled today, we won't be accepting the Government amendment in the name of Rebecca Evans that has been tabled. I'm not quite sure how it adds or puts anything of benefit into the debate at all other than seeking to delete points 3 and 4. Well, if you actually look at points 3 and 4, it just merely—in particular point 3—highlights the blindingly obvious that the scandals around the timber sales have blighted the reputation of NRW, and the work of Grant Thornton has highlighted exactly the points about heightened exposure to risk and fraud. So, I can't see why you'd want to delete what has actually been accredited to via the public accounts investigation and other well-documented reports into this sorry tale of ineptitude. So, regrettably, we won't be accepting the Government amendment, and, in respect of the Plaid Cymru amendments, we won't be accepting the first two Plaid Cymru amendments, which try to delete our point about saying that NRW has, sadly,
'failed the people of Wales through a number of high-profile scandals'
with the words
'Regrets the series of high profile failures in NRW'.
I'm not quite sure quite how that adds anything to the motion at all, but I'm sure we'll hear that from the speaker when he addresses those amendments, but we will be accepting the final amendment, amendment 4. It is critical that NRW is resourced to actually carry out its functions and, in particular, when you look at the legislation over recent years that has been delivered in this particular area—the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—and the obligations that have been placed on NRW, it is vital that, obviously, the resource follows the competence, if you like, that we are passing over to this organisation.
It is worth reflecting that, when NRW was created back some six years ago, there were some very high-profile figures who obviously questioned whether it was wise to put three such diverse organisations together—the Environment Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission. In particular, Jon Owen Jones, who was chairman of the Forestry Commission at the time, highlighted the weakness of the business case that was before the Assembly at that time, looking at some of the policy objectives that the Ministers were trying to promote and indeed questioning the viability of bringing forward these three organisations into one organisation, and how true his words were, and they've come back to haunt us, to be honest with you, because, obviously, as I said in my opening remarks, highlighting the well-documented decline in the forestry sector here in Wales, but in particular the loss to the Welsh taxpayer by poor contracts that were agreed by NRW and the complete demoralisation of the staff within the organisation.
The organisation is only as good as its staff, and there are many, many talented individuals who came from the three previous organisations into NRW and have a passion and a calling for working in this particular area, but who, sadly, have been let down through poor leadership, lack of direction and just the sheer volume of work that has been placed on their desks and in their in-trays. Staff survey after staff survey has highlighted, regrettably, some of the pressures that many of these staff have faced on a year-by-year, day-by-day, week-by-week basis. Only 11 per cent of the staff had confidence in the decisions being made by senior management in one staff survey; 15 per cent believed the actions of senior managers are consistent with the organisation's values; only 10 per cent said the organisation as a whole was well managed.
In 2016, the organisation actually stopped printing the outcomes of staff surveys because the evidence was so damning. We as politicians obviously owe it to the staff to make sure that their voice is heard and, ultimately, that the improvements and the safeguards are put in place. And as recently as 2018, in a major consultation with the staff, NRW did not believe that the reorganisation that was going on in the staffing structures would provide a basis for taking the organisation forward. They believed that a lot of these new teams that were being created would create jacks-of-all-trades and masters of none, and in the highly specialist field that many of these staff work in, it is vital that the expertise is allowed to flourish and allowed to deliver those safeguards and promotional activities that we require of NRW.
In particular, Grant Thornton's report, the most recent report, which did look at the timber sale scandal but also looked at the way the organisations had merged over the previous six years, highlighted how there was still serious silo working within the organisations and that the forestry sector, the countryside council and the environment agency still very much looked at themselves as individual organisations under one banner. And this is some six years after the three organisations came together.
That has to be a major, major concern for us here as the legislature but, in particular, for the Government, because another part of the motion before us today highlights some of the Government's interference, I would suggest, in the affairs of NRW, in particular around the ban on pheasant shooting, where independent advice was sought at a cost of £48,000—NRW did the right work, they went out, they got the independent advice, they took that advice and said the status quo should prevail—and then the Minister intervened to overrule. And I note yesterday that the judicial review was dismissed, which was brought forward, because it clearly stated that NRW's board had no discretion in this particular instance when the Minister had intervened. And so the Government do carry a very heavy liability for some of the issues that have come about through the sheer lack of leadership that the Welsh Government have offered—

Rhianon Passmore AC: Will you take an intervention?

Andrew RT Davies AC: Gladly. I could see you waiting. [Laughter.]

Rhianon Passmore AC: Do you acknowledge that there is a huge emphasis now on a single organisational culture throughout NRW and acknowledge the substantive new board and leadership team that are working at the top of NRW?

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Andrew RT Davies AC: I met the chief executive only last week, and I'm impressed by her ability, but each time over the last six years when issues have come to a head, in particular around staff morale and the direction of the organisation, we're always told that, 'The management is getting to grips with this complex organisation and it'll be better tomorrow', and tomorrow, in this instance, never seems to come, regrettably.
There would be no one more happy in this Chamber than myself to see NRW flourishing, because, as I said, it has a huge mandate. The environment here in Wales and the potential to develop that environment for the benefit of future generations is one of the biggest legacies we can pass on, and, sadly, we have stood still for six years, I would suggest, and highlighting some of these issues, as I've done in my opening remarks to this debate, clearly shows that that is why, back in December, we called for the reorganisation of NRW, and our final point in the motion today does say that it does need to be looked at and that separation with the commercial aspects of what NRW does from the regulatory aspects, because the two do not sit hand in glove, and there is a need to go back to the drawing board and revamp the organisation because it is such a huge, huge part of the fabric and DNA of Wales, and it has had six years to develop its drive, its mojo, its very DNA, and it's failed to do that. And whilst I wish the new board, and I wish the new chief executive, and I wish the interim chair—because it is an interim chair, it hasn't been appointed on a full-time basis—all the very best, I genuinely cannot see this organisation correcting some of the wrongs because the construction back six years ago—. This organisation was wrongly constructed, as Jon Owen Jones pointed out in his remarks at the time, and many Members in this Chamber. Some Members in this Chamber will remember Antoinette Sandbach, who most probably—. I and she locked horns very many times on certain issues, but Antoinette at this point was the rural affairs spokesperson and the Member in charge from the Conservative point of view, and highlighted many of these problems that have come home to roost in this organisation. You can look back at the Record, and it points to the direction of travel that we were foreseeing some six years ago.
So, instead of us carrying on on this broken track, let's go back to the start and let's actually reorganise this organisation so that we can build an organisation that, at its heart, will develop an environment here in Wales that has the potential to be an environment that anyone across the world will look at and say, 'That is the organisation that we want within our own structures and our own frameworks.' We haven't done that over six years, and hence that's why we bring this debate to the Chamber this afternoon. So, that's why I call on the Chamber to support the motion—in particular, the ability not to leave it standing for another two, three, four years, and hope that it comes right. Hope, a long time ago, evaporated from this argument. It is now a time to actually move forward and develop the solutions that we require and not turn away from some of these demanding questions that are being put to us. And that's why I hope the Chamber will support the motion before it this afternoon.
There are huge potentials ahead and opportunities ahead with the responsibilities that will be coming to this Chamber and to the Government when we leave the European Union: forty-odd new responsibilities, many of them in the field of the environment, and NRW was never constructed to deal with these opportunities. Let's put this organisation back on track, let's turn our back on some of the failures and let's look to the opportunities. And that's why I call on the Chamber to support the motion here this afternoon.

Thank you. I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans
Delete points 3 and 4 replace with new points:
Notes the findings and recommendations of the reports by:
a) National Assembly Public Accounts Committee inquiry into NRW’s annual report and accounts 2017-2018—November 2018;
b) Grant Thornton—Natural Resources Wales—Governance of Timber Sales—February 2019.
Welcomes the appointment of a new chief executive and interim chair of NRW and their commitment to implement the recommendations of the two reports and improve the management and governance of NRW.

Amendment 1moved.

Lesley Griffiths AC: Formally.

Thank you. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth
In point 3, replace 'Regrets that NRW has systematically failed the people of Wales through a number of high-profile scandals' with 'Regrets the series of high profile failures in NRW'.
Amendment 3—Rhun ap Iorwerth
Delete point 4 and replace with:
Calls on the Welsh Government to establish an independent review to ascertain whether it is still appropriate for NRW to continue to manage the commercial forest estate in Wales and consider any potential alternative models.
Amendment 4—Rhun ap Iorwerth
Add as new point at end of motion:
Calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that NRW is properly resourced to adequately fulfil all of its duties.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 moved.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am struggling, I have to say, with what the Conservatives are calling for because they wish the new chief executive all the best as well as the interim chair but then they're also saying that they're all hopeless and that we need to restart and recreate a new organisation.
Now, for me, starting from the beginning is the last thing that we need to do. We would be wasting the work that's been done over the past few years, and the reason that we've proposed one of our amendments, the second amendment, is that I don't accept the claim in the motion that there is a systematic failure:
'Regrets that NRW has systematically failed'.
Yes, there have been failings, and we regret some of those failings, but you can't try and characterise the situation as if the whole organisation is flawed from top to bottom, and I do think that it's unfortunate that you're besmirching the whole organisation because of the failings of some people within it. Now, as I say, the last thing I would want to see is full reorganisation because that would not—

Andrew R.T. Davies rose—

Llyr Gruffydd AC: No, I do want more than a minute to develop my argument—I may take your intervention at the end, if I have time, and I’ve lost my train of thought now.
I’ve mentioned Brexit in the past, and all of the changes and problems that will come about as a result of that. If you introduce major institutional change at the same time, you’re asking for trouble, in my view.
Our amendment 4, of course, refers, as we always do when we talk about NRW, to the pressure on resources. The truth is that the institution has faced a cut of 35 per cent in real terms since its establishment—that’s a third of its budget lost in just five years. Now, show me any organisation that can take such a hit without there being some undesirable implications, and you’d be doing very well if you were able to do that. Simultaneously, as I regularly remind Members, the responsibilities have increased through the well-being of future generations Act, the environment Act and so on and so forth. That trajectory is entirely unsustainable: resources reducing, responsibilities increasing.
It says a great deal, I think, that NRW has been going through a whole-organisation review, given that it’s such a young organisation—only five or six years old—recognising that NRW, as a result of that, would, yes, have to work differently in certain areas of activity, but would also operate more slowly in certain areas. Well, you tell those people who are waiting for environmental licences or planning consent in certain areas and they say that they’re slow enough already, or not delivering certain responsibilities at all, according to a letter from the chief executive to the Public Accounts Committee recently. So, perhaps we should be turning to the Government and asking, 'Well, what elements of their work are youhappy for them to drop, if they’re telling you that they may have to do that?'
Now, I do feel that there’s a valid question in the motion on the independence of NRW. Certainly, whatever your view as to whether the decision to ban pheasant shooting was correct or not, I think that the process, when it was unanimously agreed not to introduce a prohibition in the first place, and then, as we’ve discussed here in the past, the Minister at the time wrote a letter and expressed a clear view and in no time at all the view had changed—in my view, that does raise fundamental questions. But, simultaneously, of course, the Government was hiding behind NRW on the issue of the nuclear mud dumped off the Welsh coast. So, somehow, the Government is trying to ride two horses, and you can’t have that. Either NRW are the experts and they make the decision, or you accept certain decisions as a Government that you don’t like. I do think that we need a little more honesty in that regard.
I’ve also raised in the past my feelings about the nature of the relationship between the forestry sector and the work that NRW undertakes, and I’ve called for an independent inquiry, not into the whole organisation, as the Conservatives are calling for, but certainly into that element, as to whether they are fit to continue to manage the commercial forestry sector in Wales, specifically.
In the few seconds remaining to me, I would emphasise that we have to think of the staff. Yes, there’s a new chief executive, yes, there’s a new interim chair and a number of new members on the board. But, the staff remain there, and the staff, generally speaking, are excellent. I think it is unfortunate that this Conservative motion does seem to denigrate everybody, if you like, within the institution, and does so, unfortunately, on the basis of the failings of a few.

Mohammad Asghar (Oscar) AC: Natural Resources Wales is not fit for purpose. The creation of Wales's largest quango came from an ill-conceived and poorly executed proposal to merge three different organisations with three different working strategies. As a result, leadership has been lacking, staff morale has been plummeting, public money has been wasted and confidence in the organisation has evaporated. The Welsh Government has received plenty of warnings about the serious failing of NRW but it has failed to act. For an organisation so important to life in Wales to have its accounts qualified for the third consecutive year is unprecedented and unacceptable. We now hear that the new chief executive of NRW has admitted that their accounts could be qualified for another unprecedented fourth year.
In its recent report, the Public Accounts Committee concluded that NRW's internal controls are not fit for purpose, but—and this is particularly concerning—the same issues of irregularities were highlighted three years ago by the then auditor general. This combination of incompetent leadership, lack of accountability and low staff morale led to the departure of staff with vital commercial expertise. As a result, decisions have been made that have caused serious financial loss for the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the controversy over how timber was sold repeatedly without going to the open market. This scandal lost the Welsh taxpayer at least £1 million, and it resulted in the resignation of the NRW chair.
The situation was described at the time by Lee Waters, before his promotion to the frontbench, and he said—and these are his words—
'there should be accountability from the senior leadership...of this organisation, which does seem to be out of control.'
He went on to say that
'it does appear that the forestry section of NRW is out of control'.
There has been a consequent and widespread loss of faith in NRW. Ten timber firms recently sent a joint letter to the Welsh Government saying that they had no confidence in NRW's ability to manage forestry in Wales. They claimed that 12,000 jobs in the rural economy and £100 million of new investment over the next five years were at risk. These companies concluded that they had no confidence in the ability of NRW to deliver commercially, viably, a sustainable or commercially driven service.
In 2018, NRW gave in to ministerial pressure and decided not to renew licences for game bird shooting on land owned by the Welsh Government. This decision flew in the face of scientific evidence and NRW's own report that there was no need to change existing laws. By caving in to the Welsh Government, NRW has put a sector worth £75 million a year to the Welsh economy and 2,400 jobs at risk.
Deputy Presiding Officer, Natural Resources Wales has systematically failed the people of Wales. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is time to scrap NRW and replace it with two separate bodies: one handling the regulatory duties undertaken by the organisation and the other, its commercial aspects. That's what this side of the Chamber is asking for. Only by making these changes can we deliver value for money for the taxpayer and provide efficient and effective protection for the environment in Wales. Thank you.

Gareth Bennett AC: Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate on Natural Resources Wales. We've been talking about NRW quite a bit in this Chamber over the past couple of years, so perhaps it is appropriate to have a more wide-ranging discussion, as we're doing today, on the organisation's overall stewardship of the natural environment of Wales.
The Conservatives' motion criticises decisions taken by senior management and cites failings in the handling of timber contracts, the qualification of the accounts by the Wales Audit Office for three years running, and the inherent contradictions over attitudes to intervening on the one hand, on the issue of shooting on public land, and on the other hand, the issue of the dumping of the so-called nuclear sludge in the Bristol channel. Although, of course, that particular issue doesn't just involve NRW; it involves the Welsh Government as well and its interaction with NRW.
All these matters are substantial issues, they are well-documented and I think it's right to call them failings and quite severe failings. The Conservatives also cite the staff surveys carried out within NRW, which were the first indication of discontent within the organisation. The early staff surveys were the first hint that perhaps that organisation, which was an amalgamation of the three separate bodies, was not a very happy institution from the outset. Andrew R.T. Davies pointed out also in his contribution that some Members were trying to alert the Welsh Government's attention to its failings from an early stage. Unfortunately, matters had to move on and the failings had to become more transparent before any action was taken.
Now, to be fair, the Welsh Government—. The point that Rhianon made: the Welsh Government has appointed a new chief executive and an interim chair, so there has been acknowledgement of past failures and the need to do things differently in future. We did have a scrutiny session with senior NRW figures on the environment committee recently, so we did hear about how things are unfolding in the organisation from their point of view, and that was a useful session. One problem that NRW had at the outset was the need to bring in specialist knowledge from outside Wales because there was not enough expertise within the organisation. So, that was a problem in how the body was set up to start with.
It may be, as Llyr Gruffydd is suggesting as a possibility, that the organisation now settles down and begins to carry out its remit more effectively. I think, to some extent, that's true, and we do need to give it a chance. Now, I looked at the Conservative motion and I thought, from your motion, that you were actually allowing for that possibility, because you don't state in your motion that NRW has to go, although I'm mindful of the contribution that Oscar Asghar just made. But looking at your motion, you don't say that the NRW has to go; your motion calls on the Welsh Government to instigate an independent inquiry into the organisation's failings and to investigate alternative proposals. So, on that basis, we were supporting you, and that remains the case, because we have to go along with the motion, not necessarily with everything that you say. I think we do need to have a thorough independent review of what's gone wrong in the past, and so therefore we do support the motion.
The Welsh Government amendment is stating that they have appointed a new chief executive and chair. It acknowledges that we have had poor reports on NRW, but it says that the organisation is now trying to implement the recommendations of two existing reports, which is fair enough as far as it goes. It doesn't cover any possible wider review to see if NRW is actually fit for purpose, which the Conservative motion achieves.
The various Plaid amendments: amendment 2 softens the Conservative motion, and amendment 3 focuses it more narrowly so that it's just critical of NRW on forestry matters. Well, the problem is that NRW's failings have been wide-ranging. They haven't been merely confined to the forestry issues. I appreciate Llyr Gruffydd had misgivings that the Conservatives had, in his view, denigrated all of the staff, but I don't believe that's actually the case, and if you look at point 2, they do actually recognise the hard work of front-line staff in the organisation. Their view was that they'd been let down by management, so—.
So, we do prefer to support the Conservative motion today, and we won't be supporting those amendments that I mentioned. We will be supporting Plaid's amendment 4, which rightly raises the issue that NRW does need to be properly resourced. Diolch yn fawr.

Mark Reckless AC: I thank the previous Member for his contribution and support for our motion. I think that's a really important point, point 2 in our motion: we recognise the hard work of the front-line staff in the organisation, and acknowledge their dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in their senior leadership. We've seen that from the staff surveys. We say at the end of our motion that we want an independent review or inquiry into the organisation's failings, to investigate alternative proposals, and I think one option has to be doing away with the organisation and doing something different. If, however, the new management manage to finally turn around this organisation and we do see real signs of improvement, we're open to that. I mean, I myself, I started, in terms of my exposure to NRW, as the Chairman of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. [Interruption.] I'll give way.

Llyr Gruffydd AC: I don't want this to be about me, but—. How long would you give them, then? Because on the one hand you're saying, 'We need to look at alternative models,' and on the other hand you're saying, 'Well, we hope they succeed, the new management team.' So, is it one year, two years, three years?

Mark Reckless AC: We are quite capable of looking at alternative models while also seeing how the organisation is doing in the meantime. We're capable of doing two things at once. I'm just saying, from my own perspective, I actually was really keen to give this organisation a following wind—a sort of benefit of the doubt. When I came in, I think it was probably the major organisation in the purview of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and I heard a lot of criticism about it, but I was prepared to say, 'Look, it's a pretty new organisation, it's still bedding in; let's give it a chance.' I'm less preparedto say that two or three years on from when I did that, when the organisation had already been there for at least three years. I think there has to come a time when an organisation's failings continue and are so egregious that, actually, you do have to look at structural change. We should look at that while continuing to monitor what it's doing in the meantime.
I'd like to focus my remarks on two particular areas where I've been disappointed with the organisation, or potentially with the organisation's interface with Welsh Government, and they are forestry and marine energy. There's a huge opportunity in forestry. We've had a system with the common agricultural policy where the playing field is tilted towards agriculture and against forestry. Farming gets a subsidy on the basis simply of the land area, and that's taken away if it's given over to forestry, so that's a huge disincentive to planting trees. But as we move to our own Wales-based system, that should no longer be the case. Actually, NRW should have a huge amount of expertise that it can use to help expand the forestry sector, both within its ownership, but also, I think, by spreading best practice and building up facilities within forestry. One of those was meant to be this sawmill line. That was the supposed justification for giving these long-term contracts without proper competition, yet that sawmill line wasn't built, and we understand from the Public Accounts Committee report that NRW was likely aware of that, but didn't do anything to enforce the contract that was meant to be building up that capacity. So I ask the organisation: can't you do more to actually help farmers who want perhaps to plant some of their land with forestry, to help bring new people into the industry and expand this sector for the benefit of Wales and, indeed, in terms of our climate change objectives?
Similarly, in terms of marine energy, it should be a huge potential growth sector for Wales, and something again where we can look to our climate change commitments and reducing emissions. I understand that Welsh Government wants to prioritise this sector. I think the work that Marine Energy Wales has been doing, largely on something of a shoestring, has actually been very positive, and I understand the Welsh Government's behind it. But a lot of the problem is NRW, because if people want to try out a marine energy scheme, wave or tidal, whichever—put something on the surface of the water or on the sea bed that's trying a new way of generating energy and investigating its practicality—they have to go through an NRW licence procedure that treats them as if they're some sort of heavy industry, putting in something permanently that's got to have this great evidence base because they've done it before and can show NRW how there's no risk whatsoever. Having this precautionary-type approach and needing that degree of backup and information and evidence for something that, by its nature, is innovative and a pilot is putting a huge block on marine energy in Wales. People within the industry are tearing their hair out saying how difficult it is to get licences from NRW, and how frustrating it is to deal with that organisation. In Scotland, they instead have a deploy and monitor approach, yet in Wales every single licence thing has to be done individually. It's so difficult to do. You try and get advice from NRW and they just charge you several hundred pounds even for beginning to talk to you. Please, Ministers, if you really believe in this marine energy sector, whatever you do about NRW more generally, just see if you can help speed this process for licence applications to support marine energy, and don't let NRW be the block.

David Melding AC: Can I assure you that it causes no pleasure to this side of the Assembly to have to highlight these controversies and note the issues that have restricted NRW since its creation? Because the body's role is critical and its purpose is crucial for the effective management and sustainability of our natural environment here in Wales.
Back in 2011, when details of the planned merger of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission were first announced, the environment Minister said that the move would ensure more sustainable and effective management of our natural resources, and that really has to be held as the guiding principle when we scrutinise the actual performance.
As I've said before—I'm not quite sure if I said it at the time, but I certainly said it when I was on the climate change committee—three into one was never going to be easy. It was always a challenging situation for the management teamat NRW, and, as we have heard, there was also change in leadership. I did try to give praise where it was due. The staff survey that we've referred to was actually an excellent device and a really rigorous survey. And to have done that at a time when you were merging organisations, and there were inevitably people that felt slightly bruised in that process, I thought did show leadership. But I think it's been some of the other more general issues that have, perhaps, undermined our faith that they were really moving on, and the issues relating to forestry in particular have been grave because they've been repeated. Let's not forget that this wasn't a one-off; it happened again. And I do think the Welsh Government has to take more responsibility. It's an arm's-length organisation and, I have to concede, the Government would be unduly criticised if it was interfering too much, but you do need to show leadership, and you are prepared to do that on certain occasions, like issues that are of public concern, as the shooting ban perhaps indicates. So, I do think that the organisation needs clear direction of travel from the Welsh Government.
We've also heard that, from the very start, the Welsh Government was warned about these challenges of creating a new organisation. And so the change management, one has to say, has not been exemplary, to put it at its mildest. And I do think that if more care had been paid at the time when these things were mooted, then I think that some of these issues, certainly the need for a real robust commercial management capacity in the new organisation, would have probably been factored in from the very start, had you reflected on the criticisms that people were making of the original business plan. I will give way.

Rhianon Passmore AC: Thank you very much. In regard to some of the issues that you've already highlighted—there is no doubt that there have been some issues—what further to the whole-scale restructuring and reorganisation within NRW is proposed from the Conservative Party opposite? And also, in terms of the restructuring around the leadership team, the restructuring around the board, what further measures are you putting into the—?

David Melding AC: Well, it's clear what they've got to—they've got to balance their regulatory powers, which, in fairness, they've exercised, I think, with some purpose, with their commercial ones. Some of the commercial judgments just defy any sort of analysis as soon as anyone looks at them, let alone the auditor looking at it and pointing out the alarming failures in commercial practice in treating companies fairly and tendering properly. These are not towering tasks to manage for public agencies that should be able to draw on the experience to do that effectively, and I'm sure that the Government was telling them to do it effectively.
Now, we have heard from Plaid that, somehow, this motion, instead of rigorous and due scrutiny, is a vicious attack on the staff. In fairness, I think everyone finds that slightly sceptical. You may not like the motion, you may think it's misguided, but, as an attack on the staff, when the second point of the motion goes out to praise the staff—. But then we had this utterly bizarre argument that the word 'systematic' means relating to individuals. Well, I have to say, my understanding of 'systematic' is that it relates to systems, but, I've only got an O-level in English language, and I didn't pay that much attention to the comprehension exercises. No doubt Llyr was a star pupil there and would be able to show me why I make these basic errors.
But I do think we also need a more hopeful message. We need to make a decision through a review whether this can be fixed, and I hope it can be. I have met the new leadership team, and I do think they've got every intention of turning things around. But if that's not going to be possible, then we do have to revisit these things and just agree a new approach. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Neil McEvoy AC: I'll be supporting the motion. Just to outline my experience of dealing with Natural Resources Wales, back in September 2017—the very first meeting about the nuclear mud. Honestly, I really had absolute confidence that the officials of NRW would be able to assuage my concerns about the mud and the testing regime, and so on. They knew nothing about the testing, despite being the body issuing the licence. They didn't know what kind of testing was done. They didn't know where the testing was done. They couldn't tell me to what depth. They couldn't tell me where the mud would end up. But they assured me nevertheless that it was safe, without knowing any of the detail. It was so bad it was the only time in my professional career where I offered to adjourn the meeting until I could maybe get an answer.
The Roath brook campaign—the desolation, the desecration of a park in Cardiff, and the destruction of very valuable trees. I went to a meeting with NRW with the new Minister. You could tell she was new because she just accepted what the officials were saying—that there was no alternative. [Interruption.] With respect, all the meetings I've attended—. [Interruption.] I'll give way if you wish. I'll happily give way. What we were told in the meeting was that there was no alternative. Again, in my entire career, I've never had an official tell me there's no alternative and not challenge it. That's what we were told. But, as time has transpired, as matters have moved on, we've seen that there are in fact very good alternatives to what is proposed at the Roath brook.
If we look at the wood contracts, I'll tell you what, I would commend NRW, because they've done pretty well in awarding a contract to a company that didn't even apply for it. Well done. Well done on that. Seriously, Grant Thornton found that their behaviour had heightened exposure to the risk of fraud. I remember being criticised back in the autumn of, I think it was 2017, again, when I objected to the shotgun retirement of the chief executive when there was this matter of the accounts not being qualified and, as I said, the company that hadn't applied for the contract being awarded the contract. Yet, the chief executive was allowed to swan off into the sunset with a package. I really didn't understand why I was criticised back then for attacking that. I still don't know.
On a personal level—I don't think Members will know this—Natural Resources Wales have breached my data protection personally as a politician in Wales. I phoned up one time and was considering making a complaint about a particular matter, and then I found out later that a Member of this Assembly, a politician here, was briefed about my call—unbelievable. Unbelievable, and that matter has still not been resolved yet. I know that the person was briefed because I saw the e-mail that somebody wrote about the briefing.
So, you've got all these things swirling around. This is an extremely serious matter. The nuclear mud will be coming back to—[Interruption.] I know it's a bit of a grind for some of you to listen to this, but please, please bear with me. As I said, this is a really important matter. The issue of the nuclear mud will be coming back. You may not like it coming back, but it will be coming back. I fully support this motion. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Lesley Griffiths AC: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to this debate today. We last discussed Natural Resources Wales at a debate here on 13 February, following the Public Accounts Committee's report of NRW's annual report and accounts. During the debate, I think we all recognised, barring a few, the extraordinary work carried out by the staff of Natural Resources Wales, as well as the decisive, positive direction that has been set by the new leadership.
I absolutely recognise the concerns raised by staff, and I know the priority of the chief executive and her senior team is to ensure all staff feel confident they will be listened to when giving their views on the way forward. This is just one area in which the measures necessary to strengthen the organisation's internal structures and ways of working are already being progressed.
As a Welsh Government, we believe the period of uncertainty proposed by the opposition is absolutely the last thing the staff of NRW need. Opposition parties call for an independent inquiry, for more discussions to take place. What we want is that change to happen now. The National Assembly for Wales have both remit and the ability to provide robust, independent scrutiny of NRW's continued progress. I welcome and commend the reports produced by the Assembly committees. Their recommendations have been accepted and are being implemented. The focus of Welsh Government and the new leadership of NRW is to grasp the present challenges and see through the changes needed. NRW has the ability to bring in independent scrutiny of its work and, indeed, this is something they've already done. The report by the auditors, Grant Thornton, has left no stone unturned in its review of NRW's forestry operations. NRW submitted the findings of the review to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee in advance of their evidence session last month, and the report was published online, along with details of the action being taken in response. And I think this is really indicative of the transparent way in which we will see this process through.
I think it's really disappointing the opposition—the Tories and UKIP—continue to suggest that the solution to the challenges faced by NRW is to undo the work of the new leadership, break up the organisation and have another reorganisation. We are firmly against the idea, as has been suggested by the Tories, that the best way to run those services is to fragment them. NRW is a single body responsible—

Andrew RT Davies AC: Will you give way, Minister?

Lesley Griffiths AC: No, you've had your say.
NRW is a single body responsible for all of Wales's natural resources— [Interruption.] You'll have the time. You can wrap up this debate and you can have your opportunity.
NRW is a single body responsible for all of Wales's natural resources, and this approach has clear benefits in terms of operational efficiency, in strategic planning and for taking the strongest possible action to address those critical issues that cut across Government and society—issues like climate change and protecting our vulnerable ecosystems. To suggest we need to break up NRW is to pose an unnecessary threat to our work in these areas and, unlike the Tories, we do not believe it's a risk we are willing to take at this critical time for our environment.
To give just one example, NRW will start a project this month to create valuable wetland habitat in Myherin forest in mid Wales—an area that is managed primarily for timber production. As well as protecting vulnerable species, this project will reduce flood risk for people downstream. The fact there is a single body responsible across these issues clearly makes sense and is providing additional benefit.
Mark Reckless did make a very valid point in relation to energy licences, and, of course, NRW's reason for being is to protect our natural resources, but I do think we can improve the position around licensing and I have met with my Scottish counterpart to see what they are doing in Scotland to see if we can simplify things.
It strikes me as very odd that Plaid Cymru are saying on the one hand NRW needs more resources but that the Welsh Govenrment should cut off the revenue the organisation earns from its forestry operations. My officials are working with NRW to look at other ways of raising income.
I believe the scrutiny role played by the National Assembly is vital for our democracy. If it's the case the Tories and UKIP Members in this Assembly feel they're unable to fulfil their scrutiny role, admitting a public inquiry is needed because they don't have confidence in their own abilities, then it's those opposition Members who have failed the people of Wales. And I do hope opposition Members regain their confidence and will commit today to serve the people of Wales to the best of their abilities, rather than looking to Welsh Govenrment to pay someone else to do their job for them.
NRW are an organisation of talented people who are facing up to some of the most critical issues facing our nation, and I think the people of Wales can rightly be proud of the work being delivered on their behalf.

Can I now call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate, please?

Nick Ramsay AC: I'll just regain my confidence before I speak.To be fair to Andrew R.T. Davies, he never was rounding up this debate, so when he did try to intervene, it probably was his last word, but, there we are, I'll do my best to round up.
Can I thank everyone who has contributed to this afternoon's discussion? It's only been a couple of weeks, as the Minister has just said, since I spoke here as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on our scrutiny of Natural Resources Wales’s annual report and accounts, accounts that have, as we know, been qualified for the third year running due to irregularities, most recently with timber contracts.
Can I make clear that this is not a criticism of the very many hard-working staff at NRW, despite what some Members may have said. And as David Melding so eloquently and simply pointed out, if it was a criticism of those hard-working staff, then point 2 of our motion wouldn’t be saying that we support those hard-working staff. And, of course, it was those hard-working staff who were contributing to the staff surveys that suggested that there was a problem at the very early days of NRW. Perhaps if those hard-working staff had been listened to at an earlier point in this process, then we wouldn’t be standing here now constantly talking about the problems that have been confronted in NRW. I think all of us need to recognise that they are hardworking and this is a higher level problem. It may well be a systemic problem. There’s not a problem in saying there’s a problem with the system, because something has clearly gone wrong with the structure of NRW.
As Andrew R.T. Davies said at the start of the debate, there may well be issues stemming from the way that NRW was put together at the start, and that came across, actually, in the Public Accounts Committee’s inquiry that we conducted: the merger of three large organisations. Okay, there was potential that that would produce efficiencies, there was potential that that would make a more competent organisation, but, sadly, as witnesses to the Public Accounts Committee told us, it did look, from outside at least, as though there was a top layer put on the three organisations, but there was never a proper bringing together of cultures. There was a cultural gap, I suppose you would call it, a cultural void within that organisation that was never really filled, and that needs to happen.
It’s not just the Welsh Conservatives who are making these points, it’s not just the Public Accounts Committee—the Grant Thornton review itself, as the Minister rightly said, left no stones unturned. That was welcomed by everyone on the committee. It’s been welcomed by this Chamber, it was welcomed when I brought that debate to the Chamber a couple of weeks ago. The Grant Thornton review conducted, in a forensic fashion, a review of NRW, exposing a number of fundamental flaws in its ways of working. And there’s wide recognition that the timber contracts that NRW entered into were, and I quote, 'novel, contentious and repercussive', and, as such, should certainly have been referred to the Welsh Government, in line with the correct procedures, which NRW was aware of and Welsh Government was aware of. But there was a lack of clarity. There was a fuzziness around the correct procedures in NRW, and if nothing else comes out of this debate, and we’re all wanting to this afternoon, after a long afternoon of having rows with each other—let’s at least make sure that, in the future, that fuzziness is dealt with and NRW knows exactly what it’s responsibilities are, and the Welsh Government assists in delivering on that.
It is time to look now to the future; there is a new team in place, and that is to be welcomed. I welcomed that a couple of weeks ago in the debate that we had. There is definitely a mood within the organisation to move forward, there's a mood here to look forward, but at the very time that the Welsh Government is removing and reducing call-in procedures for arm’s-length body organisations, those procedures are needed now more than ever. So, we call in this debate this afternoon for the Welsh Government to make sure that NRW is fit for purpose as we move forward. Welsh Government does need to work with the team that has been put in place. That team does need to work with and listen to the hard-working staff at NRW to make sure that the sorts of errors that we’ve seen in the past won’t be made in the future.
As things stand at the moment, there cannot be a guarantee that those accounts of NRW will not be qualified again, and possibly again, because, as things stand at the moment, things are not as they should be. There is a mood, there is a decisiveness to put things right, but as was said by many speakers earlier, until that actually happens, then we will not move forward. I really hope we do, and that’s why I urge the Chamber this afternoon to support this motion.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I intend to proceed directly to voting time. Okay, thank you.

Voting deferred until voting time.

8. Voting Time

So, the only vote today is the Welsh Conservative debate on Natural Resources Wales, the debate we’ve just had, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If the proposal is not agreed to, we vote on the amendments tabled to that motion. Open the vote. Has everybody who intends to vote voted? Okay, then, close the vote. For the motion 13, no abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

NDM6989 - Welsh Conservatives Debate - Motion without amendment: For: 13, Against: 34, Abstain: 0
Motion has been rejectedClick to see vote results

We move to vote on the amendments. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 1, 27, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

NDM6989 - Amendment 1: For: 27, Against: 21, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been agreedClick to see vote results

Amendments 2 and 3 deselected.

Amendments 2 and 3 are deselected.
We now call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 21, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

NDM6989 - Amendment 4: For: 21, Against: 27, Abstain: 0
Amendment has been rejectedClick to see vote results

I call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Motion NDM6989as amended:
To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:
1. Notes the Welsh Government’s decision to merge the Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales, and the Forestry Commission Wales with the formation of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in 2013.
2. Recognises the hard work of frontline staff in the organisation but acknowledges their dissatisfaction and lack of confidence in the decisions taken by senior management, as regularly expressed in staff surveys since NRW’s inception.
3. Notes the findings and recommendations of the reports by:
a) National Assembly Public Accounts Committee inquiry into NRW’s annual report and accounts 2017-2018 – November 2018;
b) Grant Thornton - Natural Resources Wales - Governance of Timber Sales - February 2019.
4.Welcomes the appointment of a new chief executive and interim chair of NRW and their commitment to implement the recommendations of the two reports and improve the management and governance of NRW.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 27, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

NDM6989 - Motion as amended: For: 27, Against: 21, Abstain: 0
Motion as amended has been agreedClick to see vote results

9. Short Debate: The importance of apprenticeships: Why we need people qualified in trades

We now move to the short debate. If Members are leaving the Chamber, can they do so, please, quickly and quietly? Could Members have discussions outside the Chamber, please? We now move to the short debate and I call on Mike Hedges to speak on the topic he has chosen. Mike.

Mike Hedges AC: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Office. I've given a minute in this debate to Jack Sargeant and Joyce Watson.
On Monday next week, I can register myself as a builder. On Tuesday, I can register as a hairdresser. On Wednesday, I can start a carpentry business. On Thursday, I can start a beautician business. On Friday, I can seek work as a solicitor or barrister. On Friday, the full force of the law will come down on me. Solicitors have legal protection. Under the Solicitors Act 1974, no unqualified person can act as a solicitor. Any person who contravenes this is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction of indictment of imprisonment for not more than two years, or a fine, or to both. I can claim to be a barrister. This has actually happened to Ian Clegg, who fooled the judges and magistratesin Guisborough, North Yorkshire, between September 2007 and April 2008. The law, which was passed in 2007 in the Legal Services Act, makes it illegal to willfully pretend to be a barrister. The offence carries a maximum jail term of one year. Lawyers, as always, look after themselves. The rest of the people are treated entirely differently. There's no protection against claiming to be any of the other ones I mentioned earlier.
I mean, hairdressing is totally unregulated. I have been told about the devastating effects of negligent hairdressing treatments, ranging from chemical burns to the scalp and face to loss of hair through misuse of products. The hairdressing industry is currently unregulated. This is a very worrying thought when you consider the chemicals used by hairdressers, who potentially could be untrained and unqualified. The Hairdressing Council, which was established through the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964, with the intention of giving status to hairdressers and therefore assurance for consumers, has called for the regulation of the industry. Registration with the council remains voluntary because the Act was never fully enforced. The Hair Council estimates that only around 10 per cent of hairdressers have registered. As the industry is unregulated and no qualifications are needed to practise as a hairdresser, there may be many that are holding themselves out as hairdressers without having any qualifications whatsoever.
There have been attempts to introduce a Bill in the UK to seek regulation. This culminated in the Hairdressers Registration (Amendment) Bill being introduced at the House of Commons as a private Member's Bill. This was, however, defeated in a vote, by 67 to 63, in November 2011. The purpose of the Bill was to propose better regulation of the hairdressing industry, to include a code of conduct and compulsory public liability insurance.The Bill was introduced by David Morris MP, who following defeat said:
'It is very unusual for a Ten Minute Rule Bill to go to division. The House of Commons was clearly divided. I hope that now I have drawn attention to the regulation of the hairdressing industry this important issue will continue to be debated.'

Mike Hedges AC: More recently, Nia Griffith, the MP for Llanelli, called in an adjournment debate for compulsory state registration, but that was rejected by the UK Government Ministers, who said registration would cost the industry £75 million. In November 2013, the matter was debated in the Senedd. Keith Davies, the former Member for Llanelli, brought it for one of these short debates. It was noted in the debate that the Welsh Government powers in this area are limited. The Hair Council continues its campaign in the Senedd to continue to raise awareness. I would urge everybody to support the council in lobbying the UK Government to introduce regulation in the area and limit the traumatic injuries suffered by some consumers.
Almost half of all house fires are caused by electrical accidents, and emergencies are taking the lives of around one person per week. Using unsafe and unqualified electricians for electrical repair dramatically increases a person's likelihood of becoming one of these victims. Research from Electrical Safety First revealed that nearly one quarter of people have arranged and paid for work with electricians without checking the electrician's credentials first. Furthermore, one third of people simply used a friend's recommendation when booking an electrician, while another quarter said that they would knowingly hire an unqualified electrician if they were in a hurry. People who need electrical repairs performed could quite easily shoot themselves in the foot by using an unqualified electrician. Electrical Safety First discovered that almost 1.3 million people in the UK needed to pay a professional to fix an unqualified electrician's botched work, illustrating that using unqualified electricians can easily lead to protracted delays rather than speeding up the process. They, of course, are the lucky ones when nothing actually serious happened.
But it's not just consumers who are dissatisfied with the poor work among unqualified electricians. Professionals also complain about the shoddy and dangerous work they have had to deal with. A third of registered electricians polled by Electrical Safety First said that they have noticed the amount of dangerous and substandard electrical work rise since 2012.
Returning to carpentry and general building, the most common reason for an attached and self-supported deck to collapse is the contractor only providing nails between the deck ledger and the structure of the house, resulting in the deck pulling away. Fans of Fawlty Towers will remember the episode of the unqualified builder who Basil Fawlty employed. Over his wife's objections, Basil hires his usual firm of incompetents, O'Reilly's, to do some carpentry work in the hotel room. The hotel is left in a worse condition than when they started and potentially unsafe and there were worries it may fall down. It couldn't fall down because they had to make another episode. This was comedy, but in real life, unfortunately, the same thing happens too regularly.
As fans of the excellent BBC programme X-Ray will remember, we've seen regular reports of shoddy and often dangerous work carried out. The work got carried out by a builder—I say 'builder' in inverted commas. This is because, often, unfortunately, a builder is not always really a builder. It seems that anyone who puts an advert in the local paper or wears overalls nowadays happily calls themselves a builder, and there's nothing that can be done about it. This is the trap for the unwary property owner who takes full responsibility for work undertaken on their property and who's usually left holding the can for very expensive rectification work, assuming the structure is allowed to remain and not be demolished when the builder has flown, denying responsibility or it's simply too hard to take to task through the courts.
There are no legal requirements as such for anyone who wishes to set themselves up as a beauty therapist. The UK beauty industry is unregulated. This means that anyone can open a salon or work as a therapist without any training, qualifications or insurance. The repercussions of this can be extremely precarious. If you were to receive treatment from an unqualified or uninsured therapist and something went wrong or you had a reaction, you may find yourself in a vulnerable position. Thousands of women are potentially putting themselves at risk by inviting rogue beauty therapists into their homes. Some agencies allow anyone to register and advertise for work with no checks.Lauren Shalson, co-founder and director of the reputable company Spa By Car, says:
'Many online beauty agencies offer work or let therapists register based simply on a phone call. How can you safely send someone into a client's home without at least meeting them in person?'
There are people without qualifications who believe they are unnecessary. They self-define as electricians, hairdressers, beauticians, carpenters, bricklayers and believe they're competent as they've been working at it for some time, they've done work on their own house or done work on their own family. I think there's a big difference between making minor alterations in your house and actually going out there and doing substantial work on somebody else's. I really think this is just generally dangerous. I believe that everybody should, when advertising a service, also have to show their qualifications. Qualifications that people have studied hard for should not be ignored. If you want to employ someone unqualified and take the resulting risk, you should do so knowingly rather than unknowingly.
Why does it matter? Beauty therapists and hairdressers can do permanent damage to your face and head. Unqualified construction workers can leave houses dangerous. Removing a load-bearing wall can lead to a house falling down; bad electrical wiring can lead to fires and electrical shocks causing death; and, finally, badly constructed roofs can lead to roofs collapsing and the problems that can exist for anybody who's in the house at the time.
I believe that qualifications are important and we need to protect the qualified from the unqualified taking their work and the unqualified putting people in danger. Apprenticeships allow you to combine work and study by mixing on-the-job training with classroom learning. You're employed to do a real job whilst studying for a formal qualification, usually for one day a week at a college or a training centre. By the end of your apprenticeship, you should have gained the skills and knowledge needed to either succeed in your chosen career or progress onto the next apprenticeship level.
Apprentices in every role follow an approved study programme, which means they gain a nationally recognised qualification at the end of their apprenticeship. They're taught by people who are skilled and know how to work safely. They can identify potential hazards. How many unqualified electricians understand inductance and how to prevent it? We need to ensure that work is done is to a good standard, which is what they've learnt in their two years, four years—however long it's taken them to go through the apprenticeship.
The qualifications, often by City and Guilds, are to a national standard or an international standard that is comparable to standards anywhere in the world. People have worked hard to gain qualifications while doing apprenticeships. They need to be rewarded for those skills and those unqualified individuals should not be allowed to undermine them.
Why, if someone claims to be a barrister or solicitor without qualification, the full force of the law comes down on them, but they can claim to be a builder, carpenter, beautician or hairdresser with no law stopping them? The people I feel for are those people who have spent time, energy and—as everyone knows who has taken exams—worry to train and pass the exams to become fully qualified, only to have someone down the street who's got no qualification, who's just claimed, 'Give me the job. I can do it.'Giving them the job, they can't do it. Thank you.

Jack Sargeant AC: Can I begin by thanking Mike Hedges for bringing forward this short debate today? I think it follows on nicely from the Deputy Minister's statement yesterday and National Apprenticeship Week the week before. As a former apprentice, I am very proud to have the opportunity to discuss my experiences and contribute today. Deputy Llywydd, I'd like to focus on two things in particular.
Firstly, time-served apprenticeships equip you with the skills to perform your tasks in your chosen trade efficiently, to a high standard, but most importantly, safely, and this is paramount in all trades.
The second thing I want to talk about in the Chamber today is the importance of continuing professional development as part of apprenticeships. This is needed so we ensure that workers can deal with the rapid changes in the economy and the rapid changes within the workplace, and this will be throughout their careers, not just during their apprenticeship. So, they will undertake continuing professional development training to allow them to always complete jobs in a safe manner to a quality standard that we all expect and should expect.
Can I once again thank Mike for bringing this short debate forward and making those points, which I fully agree with? I look forward to working with Mike and the Welsh Government Minister to ensure we can deliver good-quality apprenticeships for current and future generations. Diolch.

Joyce Watson AC: I want to thank Mike for bringing what is an important debate here. I think the key thing here is that this would be welcomed by the industries that have been mentioned because people invest in their futures. It takes time, it takes money, and it takes huge effort, but what undermines all of that are the stories that we hear, yet again this week in the news and documentaries, particularly within the construction industry, about those rogue traders. It really does undermine all the really excellent work that is carried out by really competent people—people that we also invest in as well, because it's one of our flagship policies: investing in apprentices. So, I think it's time to look at really giving some certification and the need to produce that certification every time that you have employed somebody, just in the same way that we've proposed equal certification to be proved by householders when they're now disposing of their rubbish.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Economy and Transport to reply to the debate? Ken Skates.

Ken Skates AC: Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Apprenticeships are, without a doubt, a proven way to drive productivity, prosperity and to build communities that are more resilient. And by building a more responsive apprenticeship system, there is no doubt that we can better respond to industry changes, and that's what I'm determined to do. I know that's also what Mike Hedges, Jack Sargeant and Joyce Watson are determined to do as well. I recall when I was last responsible for the skills portfolio, working to get the hairdressing trade better regulated, and the threat by Mike Hedges to become a hairdresser, I think it was on Tuesday, clearly demonstrates why regulatory control is still very much needed, not just in that sector, but in the other disciplines that Mike rightly identified.
There's no doubt that skills are inextricably linked to the ability to carry out work properly, effectively and efficiently, and as Jack Sargeant said, apprenticeships offer the best means of acquiring key skills. Demand for apprenticeships is changing, as employers seek skills at higher levels, and young people looking towards apprenticeships as an alternative pathway to full-time undergraduate learning.
The apprenticeship programme was never intended to be a programme to be used to fill every possible skills gap in the marketplace. We need to look forward whilst also reflecting on best practice in apprenticeship programmes and delivery. We need to refocus our efforts on skilled technical trades. This will support our aims of securing parity of esteem for vocational education and training, to enhance quality and improve the outcomes for the economy and for the people that we serve. And we want the programme to ensure that apprenticeships support young people, and our focus will be to improve our offer across a range of technical and professional areas, particularly science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and the higher level training will feature more within the programme.
Core to our approach across the apprenticeship programme has been the establishment of the Wales apprenticeship advisory board. This board is an employer-led organisation, chaired by the Confederation of British Industry, and includes large employers as well as SMEs. It provides strategic input, robust challenge on skills content, and advice on the scope and range of apprenticeship frameworks. Our primary focus continues to be apprenticeships at level 3 and above, where returns are significantly higher and reflect good practice in other European countries. We are particularly prioritising the expansion of higher apprenticeships in STEM and technical subjects to create the next new generation of professionals to drive innovative practices, to create new products and to boost productivity levels.
I am delighted to say that in the last year, Dirprwy Lywydd, higher level apprenticeships accounted for 16 per cent of all starts. Last year, we introduced degree apprenticeships and delivery will initially be focused on degree-level skills gaps that have been identified by the regional skills partnerships in digital and advanced engineering.
To manage emerging and latent demand, we have been working with employers under skills clusters in areas such as health, forestry and engineering, and again, digital. In particular, we are driving service improvements in public sectors, working with local authorities, with health service and other public bodies. And to complement this, we're working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses to understand how we can cluster delivery around certain sectors so that small and medium-sized enterprises can better access the programme.
Furthermore, we are creating better jobs closer to home through extending and expanding shared apprenticeships in the Valleys taskforce area to support SMEs and micro businesses in accessing training. We are encouraging SMEs to use apprenticeships by offering an incentive of up to £3,500 to recruit a young person, where the SME is new to the apprenticeship system. All of this is aimed at creating a culture in Wales where recruiting an apprentice becomes the norm.
For young people, getting the right apprenticeship can be genuinely life changing. We are opening up apprenticeships through improving the visibility of what is on offer, and this year, we'll be launching a new IT platform with a range of functions designed to make the apprenticeship journey clearer and far more user friendly. Of course, our headline commitment is 100,000 apprenticeships in this Assembly term—a target we are not only on course to meet, but to exceed. But this isn't just about quality; it's about quantity and it's about ensuring that we get as many young people into apprenticeship frameworks as possible. Those frameworks cannot be compromised by people entering economic activities that will undermine skilled trades, as all of the speakers today have identified. And this is something that the Welsh Government continues to work to prevent.
In the first half of this Assembly term, we have strengthened the relevance, the quality and the effectiveness of our apprenticeship offer. And we all know that the pressures on Wales will increase in the coming years. The age of automation, Brexit and emerging new technologies all demand that we have a resilient training system, and delivering high-quality apprenticeships will help us meet these challenges. Diolch.

Thank you very much. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.

The meeting ended at 18:26.

QNR

Questions to the Minister for Education

Darren Millar: Will the Minister make a statement on the resources available for Welsh schools?

Kirsty Williams: Local authorities are responsible for funding schools in Wales. Welsh Government has prioritised support for schools through the local government settlement. We also continue to provide significant additional grant funding to support our educational reforms and improve outcomes for learners.

Leanne Wood: How is the Welsh Government ensuring that schools have adequate funding?

Kirsty Williams: I have taken action to support budgets for local authorities in order to safeguard front-line services in schools. Educational funding remains a key priority for this Government, in spite of continued austerity.

Russell George: Will the Minister make a statement on the provision of foundation phase education?

Kirsty Williams: The foundation phase is the bedrock of our education system and has been identified as a significant strength of current educational practice in Wales.

Joyce Watson: Will the Minister make a statement on the affordability of extracurricular activities in schools?

Kirsty Williams: I introduced pupil development grant—access in 2018-19 to provide additional support directly to families who need it most, helping them with some of the costs of the school day. This includes help for extra-curricular activities such as scouts, guides or sports. In 2019-20, we have more than doubled this funding.

Rhianon Passmore: How will the Minister ensure that the second wave of the 21st Century Schools and education programme delivers facilities that benefit the wider community in Islwyn?

Kirsty Williams: The twenty-first century schools and education programme has already delivered schools and colleges across Wales that incorporate valuable community resources, including those in Islwyn High School. In our second wave of investment, we will continue to invest in facilities that benefit the wider community, including wider asset use and co-location of services.

Questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services

Rhianon Passmore: When will free sanitary products be offered to patients throughout the NHS?

Vaughan Gething: I announced on 5 March that free sanitary products will be available to all women in Welsh hospitals. I have asked officials to work with NHS Wales to implement this policy as soon as possible.

Joyce Watson: Will the Minister make a statement on the uptake of children's vaccinations?

Vaughan Gething: Immunisation uptake rates in Wales remain at the top of international benchmarks and are comparable to other UK countries. The vast majority of children in Wales are fully immunised before they start school. Immunisation programmes are vital to protect individual children against preventable diseases and to provide herd immunity.

Llyr Gruffydd: Will the Minister make a statement on mental health care in North Wales?

Vaughan Gething: The 'Together for Mental Health in North Wales 'strategy was published in 2017. The local health board’s all-age strategy was co-produced with service users and key partners in north Wales and outlines its approach to responding to mental health issues for people of all ages.

Janet Finch-Saunders: What action is the Welsh Government taking to improve awareness of ovarian cancer?

Vaughan Gething: We recognise the importance of people being aware of the symptoms of cancer, including ovarian cancer. It is vitally important cancers are diagnosed in earlier, more treatable stages. If people have concerns about significant symptoms or prolonged changes in their physical health, then we encourage people to see their GP.

Hefin David: Will the Minister make a statement on Welsh Government support for young people with autism in Caerphilly?

Vaughan Gething: The Welsh Government is improving the provision of autism services. As well as implementing the ASD strategic action plan, including through the roll-out of the integrated autism services, I will also issue a code of practice on the delivery of autism services in order to guide service change.

Rhun ap Iorwerth: Will the Minister make a statement on vascular services in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board?

Vaughan Gething: Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board is currently implementing changes to vascular services, which were publically consulted on and agreed in January 2013 as part of its service change programme. We anticipate the service will be operational from 8 April 2019.

Lynne Neagle: Will the Minister make a statement on the efficacy of the complaints process in Wales for those unhappy at the treatment they have received from the NHS?

Vaughan Gething: The principle of ‘investigate once, investigate well’ is central to 'Putting Things Right'. It ensures complaints are investigated in a proportionate and consistent manner and complainants receive a response that addresses the concerns they have raised. If a complainant remains dissatisfied, they can contact the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.